EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS COMMON TO A AITHFUL IN THE ...€¦ · EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS...

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS COMMON TO ALL THE FAITHFUL IN

THE CODE OF CANON LAW

By

SARATH CHANDRA SAGAR MADDINENI C.SS.R.

A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Canon Law,

Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Canon Law

Faculty of Canon Law

Saint Paul University

2018

© Sarath Chandra Sagar MADDINENI, Ottawa, Canada, 2018

ii

ABSTRACT

This study identifies and analyses the explicit and implicit rights in the Code of

Canon Law that are common to all the faithful, that is, the canonical rights of all the

baptized christifideles and, in particular, the Catholic faithful. Excluded, therefore, is a

consideration of the special rights of particular groups of the faithful such as the laity,

clerics, religious, office holders, married persons, etc. Although the focus of the thesis is

on the canons of the Latin Code, the counterpart canons of the Code of Canons of the

Eastern Churches are always noted when they exist.

Explicit rights in canon law are indicated by the word ius or a synonym of same.

An implicit right has no explicit terminology indicating a right, but the right is implied in

the meaning of the law. Mostly, such rights are implied in the legal obligations of office

holders and ministers. That they are obliged by law to do something for the benefit of the

faithful implies a concomitant right of the faithful that it be done. Other requirements of

the law may also give rise to implicit rights. These can only be known by a careful study

and interpretation of the law considered in text and context. There are also certain Latin

grammatical expressions commonly used in canon law for obligations or other

requirements of law, and frequently these are indicators of an implied right.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... VIII

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ IX

GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER ONE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL

1.1 The Notion of Rights ............................................................................................. 13

1.1.1 The meaning of rights in the Church ............................................................... 13

1.1.2 Different types of rights in the Church ............................................................ 16

1.1.3 The meaning of “Christian faithful” ................................................................ 20

1.1.4 Relation of rights to obligations in canon law ................................................. 23

1.2 Modern Papal Teachings on Rights before Vatican II ...................................... 24

1.2.1 Pope Leo XIII .................................................................................................. 25

1.2.2 Pope Pius XI .................................................................................................... 26

1.2.3 Pope Pius XII ................................................................................................... 28

1.2.4 Pope John XXIII .............................................................................................. 29

1.3 Teachings of the Second Vatican Council on Fundamental Ecclesial Rights . 31

1.3.1 Spiritual rights .................................................................................................. 32

1.3.1.1 The right to pursue holiness of life ........................................................... 32

1.3.1.2 The right to receive the spiritual goods of the Church .............................. 33

1.3.1.3 The right to one’s own spirituality ............................................................ 34

1.3.1.4 The right to observe one’s own rite .......................................................... 34

1.3.2 Rights to participate in the Church’s mission .................................................. 35

1.3.2.1 The right to announce the good news of salvation ................................... 35

Table of Contents: Rights Common to All the Faithful

iv

1.3.2.2 The right of preserving, professing and defending the faith ..................... 36

1.3.2.3 The right to undertake works on one’s own initiative .............................. 37

1.3.3 Personal rights .................................................................................................. 37

1.3.3.1 The right to express one’s needs ............................................................... 37

1.3.3.2 The right to freedom of research ............................................................... 38

1.3.3.3 The right to associate freely in the Church ............................................... 38

1.3.3.4 The right to instruction and free inquiry in the sacred disciplines ............ 39

1.4 Papal Teachings on Rights after Vatican II ....................................................... 40

1.4.1 Pope Paul VI .................................................................................................... 40

1.4.2 Pope John Paul II ............................................................................................. 42

1.4.3 Pope Benedict XVI .......................................................................................... 46

1.4.4 Pope Francis ..................................................................................................... 47

1.5 The Universal Law on the Rights of the Faithful 1917 Code to 1983 Code ..... 48

1.5.1 Rights of the faithful in the 1917 Code ............................................................ 49

1.5.2 Implicit rights in the 1917 Code ...................................................................... 50

1.5.3 The revision of the 1917 Code ......................................................................... 51

1.5.3.1 Attempts to list the rights of the faithful ................................................... 53

1.5.3.2 Rights in the Code revision process .......................................................... 54

1.6 Fundamental Rights of the Faithful in the Revised Code (cc. 208-223) ........... 58

1.6.1 True equality of dignity and action .................................................................. 59

1.6.2 Obligation to maintain communion ................................................................. 60

1.6.3 Obligation to live a holy life ............................................................................ 61

1.6.4 Right to proclaim the gospel ............................................................................ 62

1.6.5 Right to express needs, desires and opinions ................................................... 63

1.6.6 Right to spiritual assistance ............................................................................. 66

1.6.7 Right to worship God according to one’s rite and spirituality ......................... 67

1.6.8 Right to find and direct associations ................................................................ 68

1.6.9 Right to participate in the mission of the Church ............................................ 69

1.6.10 Right to Christian education .......................................................................... 71

1.6.11 Right to freedom in pursuit of sacred sciences .............................................. 72


v

1.6.12 Right to choice of state in life ........................................................................ 73

1.6.13 Right to good reputation and privacy ............................................................. 74

1.6.14 Right to protection and vindication of rights ................................................. 76

1.6.15 Obligation to support the Church ................................................................... 78

1.6.16 Obligation to consider the common good and rights of others ...................... 80

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER TWO

RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE MUNUS DOCENDI

2.1 Rights to the Ministry of the Divine Word ......................................................... 90

2.1.1 The right to receive preaching from ordained ministers .................................. 90

2.1.2 The right to catechetical formation .................................................................. 97

2.2 Rights Pertaining to Catholic Education .......................................................... 103

2.3 Rights in the Canons on Instruments of Social Communication.................... 115

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 121

CHAPTER THREE

RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE MUNUS SANCTIFICANDI

3.1 Rights to the Official Liturgical Celebrations of the Church ......................... 124

3.1.1 Right to the official liturgy of the Church ..................................................... 125

3.1.2 Right to proper liturgical observances and discipline .................................... 126

3.1.3 Right to careful celebrations of sacramentals ................................................ 127

3.1.4 Right to a properly celebrated funeral............................................................ 128

3.2 Explicit Rights to the Sacraments ..................................................................... 129

3.3 Implicit Rights to the Sacraments ..................................................................... 134

3.3.1 General rules on the right to the sacraments .................................................. 134

3.3.2 Baptism .......................................................................................................... 136

3.3.3 Confirmation .................................................................................................. 137

3.3.4 Eucharist ........................................................................................................ 140

3.3.5 Penance .......................................................................................................... 142


vi

3.4 Rights to the Sacraments in Danger of Death .................................................. 147

3.4.1 Sacramental sharing (communicatio in sacris) .............................................. 148

3.4.2 Baptism .......................................................................................................... 149

3.4.3 Confirmation .................................................................................................. 151

3.4.4 Eucharist ........................................................................................................ 152

3.4.5 Penance .......................................................................................................... 155

3.4.6 Anointing of the sick ...................................................................................... 158

3.5 Rights to the Preparation for the Sacraments .................................................. 159

3.5.1 Right to the ministry of the word ................................................................... 159

3.5.2 Baptism .......................................................................................................... 160

3.5.3 Confirmation .................................................................................................. 161

3.5.4 Eucharist ........................................................................................................ 163

3.5.5 Anointing of the sick ...................................................................................... 164

3.6 Rights to Church Funerals ................................................................................. 165

3.6.1 Right to a funeral ........................................................................................... 165

3.6.2 Churches for funerals ..................................................................................... 165

3.6.3 Rights concerning offerings for funerals ....................................................... 167

3.7 Rights Concerning Churches ............................................................................. 168

3.7.1 Right to have sacred images in the churches ................................................. 169

3.7.2 Right to free entry into the churches .............................................................. 169

3.7.3 Right to enter church at least for few hours a day ......................................... 170

3.7.4 Rights concerning the relegation of a church to profane use ......................... 171

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 172

CHAPTER FOUR

RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE MUNUS REGENDI

4.1 The People of God ............................................................................................... 178

4.1.1 Associations of the faithful ............................................................................ 178

4.1.2 The diocese .................................................................................................... 183

4.1.3 The parish ....................................................................................................... 192


vii

4.1.4 Diocesan and parish registers ......................................................................... 199

4.2 The Temporal Goods of the Church ................................................................. 203

4.2.1 Donations of the faithful ................................................................................ 205

4.2.2 Administrators of temporal goods ................................................................. 210

4.2.3 The diocesan bishop ....................................................................................... 215

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 219

GENERAL CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 223

APPENDIX ONE ............................................................................................................... 232

APPENDIX TWO .............................................................................................................. 237

APPENDIX THREE ........................................................................................................... 245

APPENDIX FOUR ............................................................................................................. 251

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 256

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE .................................................................................................... 288

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My gratitude first and foremost goes to God the almighty who blessed me with life

and a religious vocation to serve him and his people, more especially now through the

knowledge of canon law that I have acquired at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada.

My gratitude goes to my Provincial, the Very Reverend Arulanandam Selsus,

C.Ss.R, and his Council, who allowed me to pursue my studies. I owe a big thanks to the

Very Reverend Mark Miller C.Ss.R. and his Council for their sponsorship since the

beginning of my licentiate studies in 2014 and then my Ph.D. work beginning in 2016.

Without their help and support, I would not have been able to acquire this valuable

education.

My most sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor John Huels, for his

scholarly guidance, renowned expertise, and wisdom. His valuable suggestions and

encouragement helped me bring this project to its completion. I truly admire and appreciate

his dedication, availability and willingness to help.

I thank Professor Augustine Mendonça for his guidance in the preparation of the

topic of the study and his continued interest and support. I thank the professors of the

Faculty of Canon Law for their interest, guidance and support during all phases of my

studies. My sincere gratitude also goes to the former Dean, Professor Anne Asselin, and

the present Dean, Monsignor John Renken, and the administrative staff of the Faculty of

Canon Law, as well as the library staff of Saint Paul University, for their availability,

assistance, friendliness, encouragement and moral support during my studies at Saint Paul

University.

Finally, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to my parents, brother, sister, relatives

and all my wonderful friends for their prayers, support and encouragement throughout my

studies in Ottawa. To all that I am not able to mention by name, I thank you so much. May

God bless you abundantly.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

AA SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Apostolate of Lay

People Apostolicam actuositatem

AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium officiale

AG SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Church’s Missionary

Activity Ad gentes

ASS Acta Sanctae Sedis

c. Canon

cc. Canons

CCEO Codex canonum Ecclesiarum orientalium, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli

PP. II promulgatus, fontium annotatione auctus

CCLA E. CAPARROS et al. (eds.), Code of Canon Law Annotated

CIC/17 Codex iuris canonici, Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus

CIC Codex iuris canonici, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus

CLD Canon Law Digest

CLSA Canon Law Society of America

CLSAComm1 J.A. CORIDEN, T.J. GREEN, and D.E. HEINTSCHEL (eds.), The Code

of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary

CLSA Comm2 J.P. BEAL, J.A. CORIDEN, and T.J. GREEN (eds.), New Commentary

on the Code of Canon Law

CLSANZ Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand Newsletter

CLSAP Canon Law Society of America Proceedings

CLSGBI Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland

CLSGBI Comm G. SHEEHY et al. (eds.), The Canon Law: Letter & Spirit

DCE BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus caritas est

DH SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Declaration on Religious Liberty

Dignitatis humanae

Abbreviations: Rights Common to All the Faithful

x

DOL Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial

Texts

DV SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine

Revelation Dei Verbum

Exegetical Comm A. MARZOA, J. MIRAS, and R. RODRÍGUEZ-OCAÑA (eds.) and E.

CAPARROS [gen. ed. of English translation], Exegetical Commentary

FLANNERY1 A. FLANNERY (gen. ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post

Conciliar Documents, vol. 1

FLANNERY2 A. FLANNERY (gen. ed.), Vatican Council II: More Post-Conciliar

Documents, vol. 2

GE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Declaration on Christian Education

Gravissimum educationis

GS SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in

the Modern World Gaudium et spes

LE JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens on the

Commemoration of the Ninetieth Anniversary of Rerum novarum

LG SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

Lumen gentium

NCCB National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the USA–prior to 1

July 2001)

OA PAUL VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima adveniens

OE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Catholic Eastern

Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum

OT SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Training of Priests

Optatam totius

PP PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio

PT JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Letter on Establishing Universal Peace in

Truth, Justice, Charity and Liberty Pacem in terris

RH JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor hominis

RN LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum novarum

Abbreviations: Rights Common to All the Faithful

xi

SC SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

Sacrosanctum concilium

SRS JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo rei socialis

TPS The Pope Speaks

1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

In my experience as a priest working in India and Africa, I realized that the majority

of Christian faithful do not have much, if any, knowledge of canon law. At times, even the

pastors who guide these Christians do not really know the richness of the Code, and they

seem scarcely aware of the existence of the canonical rights enjoyed by those in their

pastoral care. The reformed Code of Canon Law went into effect more than three decades

ago, yet it is not fully utilized or even discovered by many. The rights of the faithful can

only be realized and appreciated when the faithful know what rights they have. In order to

vindicate one’s rights, one needs to know them. This is a considerable challenge, however,

since many rights in the Code are implicit, that is, not explicitly stated to be rights, so that

they may not even be recognized as rights. Here is where our study of explicit and implicit

rights hopes to make a contribution not only to the science of canon law but also to its

observance by the Catholic faithful and the pastors of the Church.

It is sometimes recognized by canonical authors that, whenever an officeholder or

another has a legal obligation to fulfill on behalf of the community, the faithful have a

corresponding right that this duty be fulfilled. This is an implicit right. Implicit means that

no right is explicitly mentioned, but the right is implied and may be inferred. However,

canons that impose an obligation are not the only ones that contain implicit rights, as this

study will demonstrate. Indeed, we shall see below in this Introduction that there are

implicit rights even in the very sections of the Code that deal explicitly with rights and

obligations.

When canonists think about rights in canon law, and when authors write about

canonical rights, their attention is mainly directed to one or more of the sections of the

General Introduction: Rights Common to All the Faithful

2

Code that explicitly treat rights: those on the obligations and rights of all the faithful in

general (cc. 208-223), of the lay faithful (cc. 224-231), of clerics (cc. 273-289), and of

religious institutes and their members (cc. 662-672). Attention is also given to the

obligations and rights of parents, which are mentioned in a number of the canons (cc. 226,

§2; 747; 774, §2; 793, §1; 796, §1; 796, §2; 798; 1136). However, it has been our

observation that rights run throughout the Code of Canon Law in all seven books. These

are sometimes explicit, even if some other terminology besides “right” is used in the law.

For the most part, however, these rights are implicit and only knowable as rights by fully

grasping the meaning of the canon. The goal of our thesis is to discover these rights of the

christifideles in the Code, both those that are explicit and those that are implicit.

Methodology

Canon 17 provides the fundamental rules for the correct interpretation of canon law.

“Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words

considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse

must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the

law, and to the mind of the legislator.” Canon 17, then, is the guidepost for this thesis, in

particular in chapters 2-4. We look first to the text of the law to identify explicit or implicit

rights. For the explicit rights, this textual analysis usually suffices. For the implicit rights,

moreover, we shall seek to present the meaning of each canon under consideration. Thus,

for each canon with an implicit right, the text of the canon will be given followed by a brief

explanation of it based on the canonical doctrine in standard commentaries on the Code

and in specialized books and articles. These explanations will be helpful, and at times even

necessary, in identifying the existence of an implicit right.


3

As noted, four sections of the Code of Canon Law treat rights in both text and

context, those on the rights of all the faithful, of the laity, of clergy, and of religious. For

the most part, the canons in these sections explicitly state the rights of persons. A sizeable

number of canons, however, do so only implicitly. We shall now briefly analyze the canons

of these four sections of the Code to identify and distinguish explicit and implicit rights.

By so doing, we believe that a proper methodology will emerge that will enable us to

identify explicit and implicit rights elsewhere in canons of the Code where these other

canons lack the specific context of “obligations and rights.”

All the faithful. Part I of Book II of the Code, in Title I, treats the fundamental rights

and obligations that are common to all the baptized faithful. In addition to the obligations,

this Title names sixteen distinct rights. Thirteen of these are explicitly stated. Ten of these

thirteen use the exact word “right” in different ways: habent ius or ius habent (cc. 211, 215,

216, 217), ius est (cc. 213, 214, 221, §2, 221, §3), iure gaudent (c. 219), or simply ius (c.

220). Three canons use an expression other than ius which, nevertheless, explicitly indicate

a right in that the legislator could have used ius in their stead and the meaning would be

the same. One of these expressions is integrum est (cc. 212, §2, 215), as in integrum est

christifidelibus. This may be translated as “the Christian faithful are at liberty,” or “the

Christian faithful are free.” If the law says the faithful are at liberty or free to do something,

it means that they have the right to do it. The other expression in this Title that explicitly

indicates a right is libertate fruuntur (c. 218), which may be translated as “have the liberty”

or “enjoy the freedom.” Again, if the law says that the faithful are at liberty or enjoy the

freedom to do something, the legislator is explicitly giving them the right to do it.


4

Three of the canons in this Title on rights and obligations have rights that are only

indicated implicitly. Canon 220 begins by saying, “no one is permitted to harm

illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses.” The canon is worded

negatively; it is a blanket prohibition against every illegitimate violation of a person’s good

reputation. Implicit in this prohibition, however, is the affirmation of the positive right of

the Christian faithful to the protection of their good name.

Another implicit right is seen in c. 221, §1: “The Christian faithful have the

competence (Christifideles competit) to vindicate legitimately their rights ….” The word

competit may indicate just a capability or competence to do something, but here a right is

implied. The canon does not explicitly state that this competence is a right, but it is implicit

both from the context of Title I and from the text itself. In saying that the faithful have the

competence to vindicate their rights, the canon implies that they have the right to do so.

A third instance in this Title of an implicit right is seen in c. 208: “From their rebirth

in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and

action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to

each one’s own condition and function.” Clearly, no right is explicitly stated in this canon.

However, a right is implied in saying that “there exists among all the Christian faithful a

true equality regarding dignity and action.” Implicit in this affirmation of a vera aequalitas

common to all the faithful is their right to equal treatment under the law, always “according

to each one’s own condition and function.

The lay faithful. Part I, Title II of Book II of the Code treats the Obligations and

Rights of the Lay Christian Faithful (cc. 224-231). In addition to the obligations, this Title

names fourteen distinct rights. Seven of these are explicitly stated by using the exact word


5

“right” in different ways: iure gaudent (cc. 225, §1, 226, §2, 229, §1, 229, §2), ius est

(c. 227), ius habet and ius competit (both in c. 231, §2).

The other seven rights in this Title are only implicit. None of these is a strict right

as such, but rather they are capabilities that imply a right. For example, c. 228, §1 begins

by saying, “lay persons who are found suitable are qualified (sunt habiles) to be admitted

by the sacred pastors to those ecclesiastical offices and functions which they are able to

exercise according to the precepts of the law.” To be qualified for an office or other task

does not mean that one has a right to it. The implicit right, rather, is for fair consideration,

all things being equal. If a lay person is qualified for a certain office or function, he or she

may not lawfully be passed over in favour of a cleric solely because of being lay.1 That

would be blatant clericalism and contrary to the right of this canon. There would have to

be some just reason to prefer the cleric instead of the lay person if both are equally

competent. The other implied rights like this one are in cc. 228, §§ 2, 3 (twice: habiles

sunt); 230, §1 (assumi possunt); 230, §2 (implere possunt); 230, §2 (fungi possunt); and

230, §3 (possunt supplere).

Clerics. Part I, Title III of Book II of the Code treats the Obligations and Rights of

Clergy (cc. 273-289). In addition to the obligations, this Title names six rights but only

once uses the word “right” (ius est in c. 278, §1). In two instances, this section of the Code

addresses the issue of the remuneration of clerics in general (c. 281, §1) and of married

deacons in particular (c. 281, §3). In both instances, the law says that the clerics in question

deserve remuneration (remunerationem merentur). If the clergy are deserving of

remuneration, they have a right to it. Thus, we conclude that this is an explicit right not

1 Cf., however, c. 274, §1, discussed below.


6

only from the context but also from the text itself. To say one is deserving of remuneration

is simply another way of saying one has a right to remuneration.

Canon 283, § 2 literally says that clerics are qualified to enjoy (competit ut

gaudeant) an annual vacation. The CLSA translation renders this as being “entitled to” a

vacation, that is, they have a right to it. So, this is another way of explicitly indicating a

right.

In the other two canons in question, the rights are implicit. Canon 274, §1 states:

“Only clerics can obtain offices for whose exercise the power of orders or the power of

ecclesiastical governance is required.” The canon uses the term obtinere possunt, that is, it

is a capability to obtain such offices. Since lay persons are by divine law excluded from

offices requiring the power of order, the implied right of the canon is that, all things being

equal, a cleric has preference over a lay person for an office entailing the exercise of the

power of governance.2 For example, if there are two equally qualified applicants for the

office of judge, one a permanent deacon and the other a lay person, the deacon has the right

to be appointed. This is an exception to the general rule discussed above concerning c. 228,

§1.

Canon 281, §2 says, “provision must also be made (item providendum est) so that

[clerics] possess (gaudeant) that social assistance which provides for their needs suitably

if they suffer from illness, incapacity, or old age.” Here a right is implied in the obligation

of the ecclesiastical authority to provide the necessary social benefits for the clergy of his

jurisdiction. We shall see, in subsequent chapters of this thesis, that this kind of right,

implied in a concomitant obligation, is the most frequent kind of right in the Code.

2 This right, however, in no way excludes lay persons from all offices entailing the exercise of the

power of governance (c. 129, §2; cf. e.g. c. 1421, §2).


7

Religious. Part III of Book II of the Code, in Title II, treats the Obligations and

Rights of Institutes and Their Members (cc. 662-672). Most of the canons in this section

fall under obligations. There are no explicit rights, but two of the eleven canons imply

rights. Firstly, c. 668, §1 says in part, “Before first profession, members are to cede the

administration of their goods to whomever they prefer and, unless the constitutions state

otherwise, are to make disposition freely for their use and revenue.” This law is an

obligation, but two rights are implied, namely, the right of novices to cede the

administration of their goods to whomever they prefer and, unless the constitutions state

otherwise, the right to make disposition freely of their use and revenue.

Canon 670 states: “An institute must supply (debet suppeditare) the members with

all those things which are necessary to achieve the purpose of their vocation, according to

the norm of the constitutions.” Again, we see a right implied in an obligation. Since the

institute is strictly obliged to supply everything necessary for one’s religious vocation, each

member has a strict right to all those things (omnia) necessary for their vocation, ad

normam constitutionem.

Conclusions. This analysis of the sections of the Code which treat rights of all the

faithful, the laity, the clergy, and religious lead to several conclusions that can be the

methodological basis for the investigation to be undertaken in this thesis. From this

exercise, we have seen that the canonical legislator does not restrict himself to using the

word ius when he wishes to declare or constitute a right in the law. A total of thirty-eight

rights are acknowledged in these four sections of the Code. Of these, twenty-four are

explicitly stated, eighteen times actually using the word ius while in another six instances

substituting a different expression that has the same meaning in the context. These other


8

words are integrum est (occurring twice), iusta libertate fruuntur, remunerationem

merentur (occurring twice), and competit ut gaudeant. So, the first conclusion is that rights

in canon law are explicitly recognized not only by using the word ius but also by using

other terminology which may be substituted for ius. If the substituted word or expression

may be changed to ius with no change in the meaning of the law, the right in question is

explicit.

The second conclusion is that rights in canon law may be accorded implicitly, that

is, with no words in the law that has a meaning equivalent to ius. In these four sections of

the Code that explicitly treat rights, the legislator nevertheless declares or accords many of

them only implicitly in the wording of the canons without any explicit mention of a right.

Of the total of thirty-eight rights in these four sections, fourteen are implicit, that is, 37%

of the total. We have seen rights implied in a prohibition, in various obligations, in several

competencies and capabilities, and by the divine law in the baptismal dignity of all the

faithful. We will show in this thesis that implicit rights are found throughout the Code, not

just in these four sections explicitly devoted to rights and obligations.

Structure

Our study is divided into four chapters. In Chapter One, the focus will chiefly be

on the fundamental rights of the faithful, that is, the “constitutional” rights of the faithful

in Title I of Book II of the Code. In Chapter Two, we continue our survey of the rights of

all the christifideles, both explicit and implicit rights, which are found in the Code of Canon

Law. The concern of this second chapter is the rights of the faithful in the canons on the

Church’s teaching office in Book III of the Code, entitled De Ecclesiae munere docendi.


9

In Chapter Three, we will focus on the rights of the faithful in Book IV of the Code, “The

Sanctifying Office of the Church” (De Ecclesiae munere sanctificandi).

Chapter Four discusses canons related to the governing office of the Church (munus

regendi) from Books II and V of the Code. In Book II, entitled “The People of God” (De

Populo Dei, cc. 204-746), our concern will be with Part I, “The Christian Faithful” (the

christifideles, cc. 204–329), and Part II, “The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church”

(cc. 330–572). The other sections of Book II do not fall within the parameters of this study

since they do not contain rights common to all the Christian faithful. Book V, on “The

Temporal Goods of the Church” (De bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus, cc. 1254-1310),

contains a number of rights common to all the faithful.

In the first two appendices, we list the explicit and implicit rights common to all

the faithful contained in Books I, VI, and VII of the Code. Although these are equally rights

of the munus regendi, there is no need to comment on all of them since, after four chapters,

a solid basis will have been established to yield general conclusions about explicit and

implicit rights. The third appendix is very important to this thesis. It gives grammatical

indicators for identifying implicit rights in canon law and assessing their weight. This

appendix is explained in the general conclusions.

Exclusions

One limit of this study is its object, namely, the Code of Canon Law. The Latin

Catholic Church knows many other sources of universal and particular law. There are also

many thousands of particular and common laws of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris,

most importantly the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. However, it is both

impractical and unnecessary to consider all of this, for we are convinced that the results of


10

our thesis can readily be applied to all other sources of Church law dealing with subjective

rights. All these rights are contained in laws that comprise one and the same system of

Roman Catholic canon law.

Second, our study is only concerned with express rights in the canons, be they

explicit or implicit in the wording of the law. We believe, however, that there are also some

tacit rights in canon law, that is, rights which cannot be identified from the text or

immediate context of the law but can only be known after a profound study of the manifold

contexts of the law. For instance, James Conn maintains that the faithful have a right to

know the names of the professors who have the mandatum to teach theological disciplines

(c. 812). No such right is discernible from the text or context of the canon, not even

implicitly, but Conn offers good arguments in favour of the existence of the right.3

Third, the focus of our study is on the rights that are common to the Christian

faithful in general, that is, only to baptized Christians (c. 204, §1) and, in particular, those

who are in the full communion of the Catholic Church (cf. cc. 11, 204, §2). This excludes

large areas of the Code in which rights may be found, especially procedural rights, because

these rights are equally enjoyed by the unbaptized who may access the Church’s canonical

system, especially its tribunals and curias.4 Moreover, we will not consider rights that are

3 Conn states that the purpose of the mandate of c. 812 “is to assure the community that someone

teaching theology is doing so in communion with the Church, that he is faithful to the Magisterium, and that

he is not proposing doctrine that is opposed to it. The Catholic faithful and the parents of Catholic youth have

a right to this assurance in choosing institutions of higher education. This right is enshrined in the law in a

variety of places and is derivative of other guaranteed rights….” He mentions the rights in cc. 213, 217, 226

§ 2, 793, §1 and 797. J.J. CONN, “The Mandate of Can. 812 Revisited,” in James J. CONN and Luigi

SABBARESE (eds.), Iustitia in caritate. Miscellanea di studi in onore di Velasio de Paolis, Vatican City,

Urbaniana University, 2005, 227-248, at 246-247. 4 Canon 1476 makes it clear that the unbaptized may approach the judicial forum. There is no

comparable canon with respect to administrative recourse, but two key canons do not mention christifideles

and so are open to any person (cc. 128, 1733, §1). The essential condition would be that the person could

claim a real grievance, and this presupposes that the person has some right. For example, an unbaptized

employee is fired by the ecclesiastical authority contrary to a provision/procedure in her employment

contract. She could take recourse (cf. c. 1290). This matter was treated in a decision of the Apostolic


11

particular to any ecclesiastical office, dignity, or juridical status (cleric, cardinal, religious,

lay, married, parents, minors). There are several reasons for this choice. The first is that

there are already fairly abundant studies on the rights of distinct groups of the faithful. Few

have been concerned with the rights of all the faithful, apart from those studies on the

several canons at the beginning of Book II of the Code that are devoted to this matter (cc.

208-223). Second, it is necessary for practical reasons to limit the scope of the thesis lest it

become unwieldy. Third, and more positively, we see our focus on the rights common to

all the faithful as a concrete expression of the fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican

Council that the Church is the People of God – all the christifideles – not just the hierarchy,

or the clergy, or officeholders, or any other particular group. Instead of concentrating on

what differentiates the clergy from the laity, what separates those in powers and from those

in the pews, our thesis is devoted to the rights they all share in virtue of their baptismal

dignity and in Church law.

Signatura, where the principal concern was the ability to approach an administrative tribunal, i.e., for

contentious-administrative recourse before the Signatura. However, that is not possible if one has not first

made administrative recourse. See William DANIEL, Ministerium Iustitiae: Jurisprudence of the Supreme

Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2011, document 20b.

12

CHAPTER ONE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL

The 1983 Code of Canon Law5 made significant contributions to the recognition of

the rights of all faithful with the inclusion of canons on the fundamental rights and duties

of the faithful at the beginning of Book II. The subject of rights is a particular interest of

canonists. The Code of 1983 was promulgated three decades ago, but still the word “right”

is a topic of interest and contention especially in today’s postmodern world.6

Rights denote an expression of freedom. The Christian freedom as envisaged by

our Lord in the gospels is central to those who believe in him: “If you continue in my word,

you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free”

(John 8:31-32). This is fundamental to all who believe in Jesus, and therefore rights must

be viewed in the context of our Christian freedom. The fundamental rights are parameters

for the faithful, and they also empower the faithful to live out their Christian vocation.

Freedom enables them to fulfill their calling.7

5 Codex iuris canonici, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus fontium, annotatione et indice

analytico-alphabetico auctus, Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1989, English translation Code of Canon Law:

Latin-English Edition, New English Translation, prepared under the auspices of the CANON LAW SOCIETY

OF AMERICA, Washington, DC, Canon Law Society of America, 1999. All references to the canons of the

1983 Code will be styled “c.” for canon and “cc.” for canons, followed by the canon number(s). 6 See J. TINOKO, “The Fundamental Rights and Obligations of the Faithful,” in Philippiniana Sacra,

18 (1983), 392 (=TINOKO, “The Fundamental Rights and Obligations of the Faithful”). See also J.A.

CORIDEN, “A Challenge to Make Rights Real,” in The Jurist, 45 (1985), 1-23 (=CORIDEN, “A Challenge to

Make Rights Real”); F.G. MORRISEY, “The Rights and Duties of the Faithful according to the Code of Canon

Law,” in Studies in Church Law, 1 (2005), 25-48 (=MORRISEY, “The Rights and Duties of the Faithful”); J.

KINNEY, “Rights and Duties of the Faithful in the Schema ‘People of God’: An Encouragement to Exercise

Them, in CLASP, 42 (1980), 107-114 (=KINNEY, “Rights and Duties of the Faithful in the Schema ‘People

of God’”). 7 See J.A. CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, New York/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press,

2007, 4 (=CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church).

Chapter 1: Fundamental Rights of the Faithful 13

This initial chapter surveys the Church’s teaching and canon law on the

fundamental rights of the faithful as this is developed in papal teachings, the documents of

Vatican II, and in cc. 208-223 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It has six major sections:

(1) the notion of rights, (2) modern papal teachings on fundamental rights prior to Vatican

II, (3) fundamental ecclesial rights of the faithful as presented in the documents of the

Second Vatican Council, (4) papal teachings on the subject after Vatican II, (5)

fundamental rights in canon law before the 1983 Code, and (6) the rights of the faithful as

treated in cc. 208-223 of the 1983 Code (Book II, Part I, Title I).

1.1 The Notion of Rights

This opening section deals with some basic preliminary matters related to rights.

These are treated in four subsections: (1) the meaning of rights in the Church, (2) the

classification of different kinds of rights, (3) the christifideles8 who are the subjects of

rights in the Church, and (4) the relation of rights to obligations in canon law.

1.1.1 The meaning of rights in the Church

What is a right? There are different ways the question of the exercise of rights in

the Church and its expression of right can be understood. It has different meanings, and

there is no one single meaning to give.9 G.J. Robinson points out that “in some societies it

seems to be easy to ascertain these values; however, in the pluralist and changing societies

8 Christifideles is the technical word in the 1983 Code for a member of the Church. See c. 204. 9 See R.J. BARRETT, “The Rights of the Faithful: Some Signs of Progress,” in The Irish Theological

Quarterly, 61 (1995), 256 (=BARRETT, “The Rights of the Faithful: Some Signs of Progress”). See also A.

MENDONÇA, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church,” in Philippiniana Sacra, 33 (1998), 435-

466 (=MENDONÇA, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church”).


of today it is often challenging and difficult. In the absence of an agreed basis for rights, it

is quite often difficult to find a common ground for discussion with many people.”10

The term “right” from the etymological point of view derives from the Latin word

ius, and it is ambiguous on account of its own differing origins in the Roman legal

tradition.11 The Romans were more likely to refer to one’s own duty (officium) rather than

the other person’s right.12 From Thomas Aquinas’ point of view, right is seen as objectively

a just thing itself,13 whereas Thomas Hobbes considers right as a liberty to exercise a

subjective power.14 Antonio Rosmini, dealing with the subjective element of a right,

defines right in inter-subjective terms. He points out that rights are not present in

individuals irrespective of relationships with other people. Rights actually form part of our

existence only when others, in attempting to deprive us of what is ours, injure us at the core

of our being. On the spiritual sphere of influence, which totally belongs to the faithful and

never can be violated interiorly, others have the duty to respect rights. Rosmini then points

out that this moral respect should be at the heart of all rights as their sanction and support.15

In a legal sense, a right is often defined as “a power, privilege, faculty or demand,

inherent in one person and incident upon another.” It is a power to dispose one’s estate. A

10 See G.J. ROBINSON, “The Challenge of Justice,” in CLSA Proceedings, 55 (1993), 3 (=ROBINSON,

“The Challenge of Justice”). 11 See A. BERGER, v. ius, in Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia, The American

Philosophical Society, 1991, 525 (=BERGER, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Roman Law). See also B. TIERNEY,

“Ius and Metonomy in Ruinus,” in R. CASTILLO LARA (ed.), Studia in honorem Eminentissimi Cardinalis

Alphonsi M. Stickler, Rome, Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1992, 552; and V.G. D’SOUZA, The Juridic Condition

and Status of Minors according to the Code of Canon Law, JCD diss., Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1994,

4-5 (=D’SOUZA, The Juridic Condition and Status of Minors according to the Code of Canon Law). 12 See A.R. WHITE, Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984, 21 (=WHITE, Rights). 13 See AQUINAS, Summa theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 57, art. 1; I-II, q. 90, art 4(=AQUINAS, Summa

theologica). See also F. SUAREZ, De legibus, 1, 2. 22. (=SUAREZ, De legibus); J. FINNIS, Natural Law and

Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980, 206 (=FINNIS, Natural Law and Natural Rights). 14 See T. HOBBES, Leviathan, in C.B. MCPHERSON (ed.), London, A. Crooke, 1651; reprint,

Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1968, 189; (=HOBBES, Leviathan). 15 See A. ROSIMINI, The Philosophy of Right, in D. Cleary and T. Watson (trans.), Durham, Rosimini

House, 1993, 125-136 (=ROSIMINI, The Philosophy of Right).


right is that which is applicable under law, morality or ethic as “knowing something right

from wrong.” It is also something that is “due to a person by a just claim or a legal

guarantee.”16 Therefore, a right (ius) is “what is always just and fair.”17

The Latin word ius is also used of an objective norm, and then it is usually translated

as “law” in English. There is a difference between ius and lex. A lex is a norm of legislative

power promulgated on the authority of a competent legislator. The concern of this thesis,

however, is “right” in its subjective sense, contra-distinguished from its normative or

objective sense. In this sense, “right is a legitimate and inviolable power whereby one

vindicates something for himself as his own. It is power, that is, a faculty or capacity in

virtue of which a person can do something in contradiction to duty in virtue of which a

person ought to do something or owes something. Where duty constricts human freedom,

right confirms or enlarges it.”18

Wojciech Kowal nicely summarizes the three meanings of ius as the word is used

in legal systems, including canon law. (1) The first meaning is that of an absolute objective

right (ius/right)—the object of justice, what is due, what is just. (2) The second is a causal

or normative objective right (ius/law)—the norm in view of which the object of justice,

that which is due, is determined and measured, the ius sum (what was decided). It is the

corpus which says what the objective right is. (3) The third meaning of ius is that of a

subjective right (ius/right)—the power or inviolable moral or legal faculty of doing,

16 See H.C. BLACK, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., St. Paul, MN, West Publishing Co., 1999, 1322

(=BLACK, Black’s Law Dictionary). 17 See BERGER, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, 525. 18 See T.J. HIGGINS, Man as Man: The Science and Arts of Ethics, Milwaukee, Bruce, 1949, 225

(=HIGGINS, Man as Man: The Science and Arts of Ethics).


possessing, omitting or exacting something.19 It is the third meaning of ius that is the

subject of this thesis.

1.1.2 Different types of rights in the Church

Rights in the Church, as in civil society, differ in nature and type. Rights may be

categorized in the Church on the basis of their source or fundamentum.20 Canon law

recognizes six different kinds of rights: human or natural rights with their source being the

human dignity, ecclesial rights rooted in the sacrament of baptism, ecclesiastical rights

derived from having or holding an ecclesiastical office, communal or religious rights

originating from the religious profession of an individual, civil rights that come with

citizenship, and contractual rights that come with a contract.21

a) Human or natural rights are derived from the nature and the dignity of the human

person. These should be guaranteed by any government or state. These basic rights include

the right to life, liberty, equality, privacy, movement, marriage and family, freedom of

thought, conscience and religion, opinion and expression, assembly and association, work,

ownership of property, and education. Since these are natural, human rights, they do not

all need to find expression in the ecclesiastical law; they are rights of the divine natural law

which exist independently of the Church’s canon law.22

19 See W. KOWAL., Philosophy of Law, Canon Law Class Notes, Ottawa, Saint Paul University,

2018, 18. 20 See MENDONÇA, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church,” 441. 21 See J.P. MCINTYRE, “Lineamenta for a Christian Anthropology: cc. 208-223,” in Periodica, 85

(1996), 249-276, 264 (=MCINTYRE, “Lineamenta for a Christian Anthropology: Canons 208-223”). 22 See CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, 8; cf. W. FERNANDES, “The Church

andHuman Rights,” in Vidyajyoti, 42 (1978), 455-462, 500-512; C. DWYER, “Human Rights: Values for a

Godless Age,” in Law and Justice, 146 (2001), 28-37; A. AN-NA’IM (ed.), Human Rights and Religious

Values, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995; T. DRAPER, Human Rights, New York, H.W. Wilson, 1982; R.

DWORKIN, Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1978; J. FINNIS, Natural Law and

Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980; M.A. GLENDON, Catholicism and Human Rights, Dayton,

University of Dayton, 2001; H. KANGER, Human Rights in the UN Declaration, Uppsala, University of


That being said, we see some of these rights explicitly affirmed in the Church’s law

as well: the right to voice one’s opinion (c. 212, §3),23 the right to association and assembly

(c. 215),24 the freedom from coercion in choosing one’s state in life (c. 219),25 the right to

reputation and privacy (c. 220),26 the right to vindicate one’s rights in the proper forum and

due process of law when using tribunals (c. 221).27 These are human and natural rights

enshrined in the Code, but certainly they are not a creation of any positive law because they

pre-exist the law itself.28 They are of divine law which derives from the precepts of the

natural law or the commandments of the gospel.29 Unlike human law which can be

reformed or adapted, the divine law is immutable and binds everyone, baptized and

unbaptized.30

b) Ecclesial rights are the result of the baptism of an individual in the Church. Some

of these rights include: the right to holiness of life (c. 210),31 the right to participate in

spreading the gospel (c. 211),32 the right to share in the sacramental life of the Church (c.

Uppsala Press, 1984; R. TUCK, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 1979; A.R. WHITE, Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984. 23 See Codex canonum Ecclesiarum orientalium, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus,

Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1990, English translation Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Latin-

English Edition, New English Translation, prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America,

Washington, DC, CLSA, 2001 (=CCEO), c. 15, §3. All references to the canons of the 1990 Code will be

styled “CCEO, c.” for canon and “CCEO, cc.” for canons, followed by the canon number(s). 24 Cf. CCEO, c. 18. 25 Cf. CCEO, c. 22. 26 Cf. CCEO, c. 23. 27 Cf. CCEO, c. 25. 28 See J. PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” in CLSA Comm1, 139 (=PROVOST, “Introduction

to Canons 208-223”). 29 See L. ÖRSY, Marriage in Canon Law: Texts and Comments, Reflections and Questions,

Wilmington, Delware, Michael Glazier, 1986, 65 (=ÖRSY, Marriage in Canon Law: Texts and Comments,

Reflections and Questions). 30 See J. HERVADA, Introduction to the Study of Canon Law, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2007, 34

(=HERVADA, Introduction to the Study of Canon Law). 31 Cf. CCEO, c. 13. 32 Cf. CCEO, c. 14.


213),33 the right to initiate and promote apostolic action (c. 216),34 and the right to Christian

education (c. 217).35 These rights are granted by Christ himself through baptism; however,

the Church’s legislators have the power to moderate them for the common good of the

Church (c. 223, §2).36

c) Ecclesiastical rights are those based on Church law and apply only to those who

hold public office in the Church.37 This law of the Church binds only Catholics (c. 11).38

When compared to natural and ecclesial rights, ecclesiastical rights transcend every

positive legal system. Ecclesiastical rights (like civil rights) are acquired through the

canonical provision of an office (c. 147).39 For instance, the rights and obligations of the

bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicars, auxiliary bishop, pastors, and parochial vicars are

rights proper to their office. Similar to these officials are the finance officer, chancellor,

tribunal officials, Catholic school superintendent, director of religious education, etc.

d) Communal or religious rights derive by virtue of one’s membership in a religious

institute through profession of vows, especially by perpetual profession of religious vows.

By profession of vows in a religious institute, these members are recognized in their

institutes and they begin to enjoy a certain level of rights beyond those of a novice. These

rights are based on the proper law of the institute lawfully approved by the legitimate

authority of the Church. The Code has several canons on the obligations and rights of

religious (cc. 662-672),40 although there are considerably more obligations than rights.

33 Cf. CCEO, c. 16. 34 Cf. CCEO, c. 19. 35 Cf. CCEO, c. 20. 36 See MENDONÇA, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church,” 443. 37 See CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, 10; see also J.H. PROVOST, “Ecclesial

Rights,” in CLSAProceedings, 44 (1982), 41-62. 38 Cf. CCEO, c. 1490. 39 See MENDONÇA, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church,” 443. 40 Not all the canons of CIC/83 listed here have their parallel in CCEO.


Certainly, religious have rights corresponding to their state in life such as the right to live

community life (c. 607, §2),41 the right to privacy in their religious state (c. 667),42 the right

to the means to fulfill their obligations (c. 670), the right to live consecrated life according

to the charisms of the founder (c. 578), etc.43

e) Civil rights are acquired by being citizens of a country. Canon 22 (c. 1504 of

CCEO) in effect recognizes the importance of civil law in some canonical matters. In fact,

the Code upholds civil law about forty times in various instances, for example, concerning

financial matters (c. 492),44 property law (c. 1259),45 wages and benefits (cc. 231, §2; 1286,

2˚).46

The Church should respect and protect civil rights acquired by Catholics from the

state. These include entitlement programs, health care, retirement and other benefits,

running for a public office, and the right and duty to vote to elect one’s leaders. The

individual must fulfill the norm of the civil law, and the Church must respect the acquired

civil rights of the individual (c. 36, §1).47 Civil rights lawfully acquired are protected in

canon law (c. 4),48 provided always that the civil law is not in conflict with the divine law.49

41 Cf. CCEO, c. 410. 42 Cf. CCEO, c. 477. 43 See E. MCDONOUGH, “The Protection of Rights in Religious Institutes,” in The Jurist, 46 (1986),

168 (=MCDONOUGH, “The Protection of Rights in Religious Institutes”). 44 Cf. CCEO, c. 263. 45 Cf. CCEO, c. 1010. 46 Cf. CCEO, c. 409, §2; 1030, 2°. 47 Cf. CCEO, c. 1512, §2. 48 Cf. CCEO, c. 5.See MCINTYRE, “The Acquired Right: A New Context,” 32. 49

The divine law is a category of laws in the canonical system which consists of laws directly

connected to Church doctrine and thus not subject to dispensation or revocation. This does not necessarily

exclude the possibly of doctrinal development with respect to certain teachings. See J.H. NEWMAN, An Essay

on the Development of the Christian Doctrine, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1909.


f) Contractual rights are those arising from an individual or representative of an

institution signing a legally binding contract.50 Canon 129051 obliges everyone to observe

the provisions of civil law for contracts and their disposition, as long as the civil law is not

contrary to divine law and insofar as canon law does not provide otherwise.52 The focus of

c. 1290 is an application to contracts of the more general provision of c. 22 on the

canonization of civil law.53 In employing personnel for diocesan offices, for example, the

Code recommends agreements according to the stipulations of civil law to protect laity (c.

231, §2)54 and religious (c. 681, §2),55 respectively.56 Not only are violations of contracts

actionable in the legal domain, breach of contract can also bring the local Church into

disrepute in the moral realm. Particularly, civil law and canon law increasingly interact,

especially in the area of contracts. Therefore, the Church follows the requirements of civil

law concerning both contracts and agreements.57

1.1.3 The meaning of “Christian faithful”

Who are the Christian faithful (christifideles) intended in canon law? This question

certainly draws much attention in the canonical world and has a wide range of answers and

interpretations. James Provost observes that the fundamental obligations and rights listed

in the Code arise variously from human nature, baptism, and positive Church law. Thus,

50 “Contract” is also mentioned in c. 1284, §2, 1˚ regarding insurance policies. Obviously, contracts

may be involved in several other issues treated in Book V, e.g., employment (c. 1286), pious wills (cc. 1299-

1301), trusts (c. 1302), foundations (cc. 1303-1307), etc. 51 Cf. CCEO, c. 1034. 52 In the Code, there are a number of canons on temporal goods which make reference to careful

adherence to civil law: in c. 1268 (referring to c. 197); 1274, §1; 1284, §2, 2˚; 1284, §2, 3˚; 1286, 1˚; and

1299, §2. 53 See J. RENKEN, Church Property: A Commentary on Canon Law Governing Temporal Goods in

the United States and Canada, New York, Alba House, 2009, 243 (=RENKEN, Church Property: A

Commentary on Canon Law Governing Temporal Goods). 54 Cf. CCEO, c. 409. 55 Cf. CCEO, c. 415, §3. 56 See MENDONÇA, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church,” 444. 57 See MCINTYRE, “The Acquired Rights: A New Context,” 34.


this observation raises an objection as to who are specifically the Christian faithful. This

objection was brought to the Code Commission, especially the wording of c. 204, namely,

that in itself it includes all the baptized and not just those in full communion with the

Catholic Church. In its response, the Code Commission admitted the broad meaning of

“Christian faithful” but claimed that, in the Code, it always means Catholics since this is,

after all, the Code for the Catholic Church; non-Catholics are not bound by merely

ecclesiastical laws58 (c. 11).59

Pedro Lombardía, commenting on the fundamental rights, stresses the aspect of

Lumen gentium no. 32 which speaks of the “radical equality of all” that derives from their

common condition. The fundamental rights are those belonging to every single one of the

faithful, simply by virtue of their belonging in the Church through baptism.60 In his

commentary on the Christian faithful, Robert Kaslyn says that the term “Christian faithful”

applies to the baptized who are in full communion with the Catholic Church (c. 205).61 The

implication of full communion pertains to Catholics only, for example, the obligation and

right to preserve communion (c. 209), to obey the sacred pastors and participate in the

Church (c. 212), to receive sacraments without restriction when properly disposed (c. 213),

58 A merely ecclesiastical law is one which contains prescripts concerning a certain matter which is

not prescribed by divine law, natural or positive, but purely by ecclesiastical authority. For example,

disciplinary laws (cc. 1108-1123: on the form of marriage) or penal laws (cc.1311-1399) contained in the

new Code. Merely ecclesiastical law is distinguished from natural and divine positive law by reason of its

source, which, in the case of merely ecclesiastical law, is the will of the ecclesiastical authority enacting laws,

acting in harmony with the divine law, both natural and positive. However, laws that interpret or declare

divine law should be classified as divine law, and these oblige even the unbaptized or those baptized in other

Christian communities, e.g., canon 1057,§1 on the requirement of consent to enter into marriage. Persons

who have the use of reason are bound by natural and divine positive laws. Canon 11 deals only with merely

ecclesiastical laws. See E. REGATILLO, Institutiones iuris canonici, 6th ed., Santander, Sal Terrae, 1961, 50. 59 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 139. 60 See P. LOMBARDÍA, “The Fundamental Rights of the Faithful,” in Concilium, 8 (1969), 42

(=LOMBARDÍA, “The Fundamental Rights of the Faithful”). 61 See R. J. KASLYN, “The Christian Faithful cc. 204-231,” in CLSA Comm2, 246 (=KASLYN, “The

Christian Faithful cc. 204-231”).


to worship God according to one’s approved rite (c. 214), to engage in the apostolate as a

Catholic (c. 216), to assist the needs of the Church (c. 222), and to be regulated in the

exercise of one’s rights by Church authorities (c. 223, §2).62 Cardinal Castillo Lara is of

the same view that the major part of the rights listed in Book II, Title I of the Code are

specifically Christian rights. They certainly belong to the faithful as Christians.63

There are rights that are expressed in the Code that arise purely from human nature,

and these belong to all people, for example, the right to association and assembly (c. 215),

the right to freedom of inquiry and expression (c. 218), the right of freedom from coercion

in choosing a state in life (c. 219), the right to good reputation and privacy (c. 220), the

right of vindication of rights in proper forum and due process (c. 221), and the right to

respect for the common good (c. 223, §1). These are not granted by law but rather preexist

the law, because they arise from human nature itself. This raises the crucial question of

whether the non-baptized and baptized non-Catholics can claim the full exercise of rights

with regard to those matters pertaining to human dignity or baptism. Our understanding of

the “common good of the Church” may call for limitations to be imposed on this.64

Canon law specifically acknowledges the rights of non-Catholics in a number of

areas. These include sacramental sharing (c. 844), mixed marriages (cc. 1124-1129), and

presenting a case before an ecclesiastical tribunal (c. 1476), including a trial for the

62 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 139. 63 See CASTILLO LARA, “Some General Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian

Faithful,” in Studia canonica, 20 (1986), 20 (=CASTILLO LARA, “Some General Reflections on the Rights

and Duties of the Christian Faithful”). 64 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 139; see also CASTILLO LARA, “Some General

Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian Faithful,” 20.


vindication of rights (c. 1400, §1, 1˚). The work of evangelization also is not restricted to

Catholics (e.g., cc. 211, 747, 781).65

1.1.4 Relation of rights to obligations in canon law

The Titles in the revised Code of 1983 consistently use the ordering of obligations

before rights, whereas the 1917 Code used rights and obligations.66 James Provost observes

that rights are derived from duties such as the duty to maintain communion and that this

duty is primary before the right. In this sense, certain rights can be seen as secondary insofar

as they are derived from obligations; Christians primarily have duties, and rights arise from

these duties.67 According to Cardinal Castillo Lara, the ordering of obligations and rights

does raise the question of priority, but the duty and right relationship taken together must

be considered. Each is essential and inseparable. For every right there is a corresponding

obligation or duty, and vice versa. They are like two sides of the same coin. The right of

an individual imposes an obligation on others to respect and uphold it. Similarly, an

individual must fulfill his obligations lest the rights of others suffer.68 James Provost agrees

that the relationship of rights and duties is one of complementarity, not of exclusive priority

of the one over the other. He goes on to caution that an overly individualistic reading of

rights can cause harm, as if to say that there is no social responsibility imbedded in the

rights and therefore obligations or duties could be viewed as less important than rights.

65 See KASLYN, “The Christian Faithful cc. 204-329,” 247; see also PROVOST, “Introduction to

cc. 208-223,” 139. 66 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 137. 67 See ID., “The Nature of Rights in the Church,” in CLSA Proceedings, 53 (1991), 4-5. 68 See CASTILLO LARA, “Some General Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian

Faithful,” 21.


This can lead to losing sight of the social and communal dimension of our Christian

communion which is central to our baptism.69

The question of the priority of the obligations vs. rights issue was raised during the

revision process, and the Code Commission replied that the ordering or the title or the term

of one over the other is not that significant since both rights and obligations in the Church

come from the sacraments.70 Furthermore, the Eastern Code in fact consistently uses the

phrase “rights and obligations.”71

1.2 Modern Papal Teachings on Rights before Vatican II

The last hundred years of Church history has shaped the Church’s approach toward

a teaching on rights. This was a historical process, a process which eventually led the

Church to take a strong stand on the rights of the human person. This teaching on rights

has attempted to identify the requirements of human dignity and uphold respect for them.

Over the decades through various popes, this teaching has taken strong root in the Church’s

doctrine.72 In this section we will attempt to see how different popes and their writings in

the modern era up to Vatican II have contributed to the development of rights in the Church.

There are four subsections covering significant teachings of Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius

XII, and John XXIII.

69 See PROVOST, “The Nature of Rights in the Church,” in CLSAProceedings, 4-5. 70 PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE REVISION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, Relatio, Typis

polyglottis Vaticanis, 1981, 62. “Loco ‘de obligationibus e iuribus’ dicatur ‘de iuribus et obigationibus’, quia

est locutio traditionalis … et melius fundata in ipsa constitutione sacramentali Ecclesiae. R. Potest recipere,

sed non videtur necessarium: reversa ex sacramentis profluunt sive iura sive obligationes.” 71 Cf. CCEO, cc. 7-26 with the title “The Rights and Obligations of All the Christian Faithful;”

cc. 78-101 with the title: “The Rights and Obligations of Patriarchs;” cc. 190-211 titled “The Rights and

Obligations of Clerics;” and cc. 399-409 on lay persons with no title as in the Latin Code, but still all the

obligations and rights listed in cc. 224-231, pertaining to lay Christian faithful, are included in these canons. 72 See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus, 1 May 1991(= CA), no. 4, in AAS, 83

(1991), 796-798, English translation in Origins, 21 (1991-1992), 3-4.


1.2.1 Pope Leo XIII

The modern social teaching of the Church began with the pontificate of Pope Leo

XIII (1878-1903). He began to move from the Church’s rigid position to the modern

political and social developments. In Hollenbach’s words:

Leo’s encyclicals laid the ground work for the modern Catholic theory of human

rights. Human dignity is the foundation of this theory. The defense of dignity was the

source of his objections to the liberal theory of the state and its overriding concern with the

preservation of liberty negatively understood. It was also the foundation of this strong

affirmation of the basic economic rights to food, clothing, shelter, organization, and a living

wage. In both the political and the economic spheres, the demands of human dignity were

interpreted with the help of an analysis of the impact of social, economic and political

institutions on human persons.73

Pope Leo’s most significant encyclical, Rerum novarum (1891), was dedicated to the

condition of labor.74 “Human dignity was the foundation of Leo XIII’s theory in both the

political and economic spheres.”75 The pope intended his encyclical to be a major

intervention in defense of the poor. He solemnly and firmly proposed his teaching to be the

remedy for the social problems of the time.76 For Pope Leo, the main issue was the misery

and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.77 He saw such

intervention as necessary in view of the fact that “a small number of rich people have been

able to lay upon the teaming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of

slavery itself.”78 Rerum novarum defends the rights of labor, the right to adequate

remuneration for one’s labor and the right to retain the results of labor in the form of private

property. The encyclical further calls for property ownership by as many people as

73 See D. HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights

Tradition, Paulist Press, New York, 1979, 49 (=HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict). 74 See LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum novarum, 15 May 1891(= RN), in ASS, 23 (1891), 641-

670, English translation in C. CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals: 1878-1903, vol. 2, Raleigh, NC, McGrath,

1981, 241-261 (= CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals, vol. 2). 75 See CORIDEN, “A Challenge: Make the Rights Real,”16. 76 See RN, no. 13 in AAS, 23 (1891), 641-670, CARLENII, 244. 77 See RN, no. 2 in AAS, 23 (1891), 641-670, CARLENII, 241. 78 See ibid.


possible. In a sense, all have a right to have these needs fulfilled at least minimally. Thus,

the encyclical affirms the rights to adequate food, clothing, and shelter as fundamental.79

The encyclical also emphasizes the right to a just wage.80 Employers are under an

obligation to recognize and protect each of these rights, and workers have the further right

to organize associations or unions to defend their just claims. This right to a just wage gives

workers the freedom of self-expression and self-determination as social beings.81 The state

has a special obligation to defend the rights of the poor and the marginalized.

Rights must be rigorously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of

public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect everyone in the possession

of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor

have a claim to special consideration. The richer classes have many ways of shielding

themselves and stand less in need of help from the State, whereas the mass of the poor have

no resources of their own to fall back upon and must chiefly depend upon assistance of the

State. And it is for this reason that wage earners, since they mostly belong to that class,

should be specially cared for and protected by the Government.82

1.2.2 Pope Pius XI

The first half of the twentieth century was dominated economically by the great

depression and politically by the rise of communism in Russia and the emergence of

dictatorships, particularly those in Italy and Germany. All these had worsening and tragic

consequences for the world. The Church’s understanding of human rights developed

rapidly during this period under the pressure of these events.83 The fortieth anniversary of

the promulgation of the encyclical Rerum novarum was an opportunity for Pope Pius XI to

publish a new encyclical, Quadragesimo anno,84 to reflect on current events and to reaffirm

79 See RN, no. 34 in AAS, 23 (1891), 641-670, CARLENII, 249-250. 80 See RN, nos. 43-45, in AAS, 23 (1891), 641-670, CARLENII, 252-253. 81 See RN, nos. 49-51, in AAS, 23 (1891), 641-670, CARLENII, 253-254. 82 See RN, no. 37, 153-154, in AAS, 23 (1891), 641-670, CARLENII, 251. 83 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 50. 84 See PIUS XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931(= QA), in AAS, 23 (1931), 177-

228, English translation in C. CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals: 1939-1958, vol. 3, Raleigh, NC, McGrath,

1981, 415-443 (= CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals, vol. 3).


and add new considerations to the social teaching of the Church. The encyclical

Quadragesimo anno is a worthy successor to Rerum novarum.85

In his encyclical Non abbiamobisogno (1931), Pius XI accused the Fascist

government in Italy of following a policy based on ‘statolatry’ in its demands that all

education be under state supervision.86 His encyclical Mitbrennender Sorge (1937)

similarly denounced the Nazi government in Germany for glorifying the state, race, and

structures of power and for subordinating the worth of the person to these “divinized

reifications.”87 Pope Pius XI addressed both issues of socialism and communism in his

encyclical Divini Redemptoris, expressing that these two theories “rob human personality

of all its dignity” and reduce the person to “a mere cogwheel” in the social system.88 Thus

the major issue that Pope Pius XI grappled with is that of human rights and human dignity

while at the same time not forgetting the concept of social justice in shaping the rights of

man. Hollenbach states:

In Quadragesimo anno Pius XI reaffirmed the rights stated in Rerum novarum but

with a new sensitivity to their social conditions and limits. In Divini Redemptoris he

provided a list of rights which, though incomplete and unsystematic, reveals the continuity

with Leo XIII: the right to life, to bodily integrity, to the necessary means of existence; the

right to tend toward one’s ultimate goal in the path marked out by God; the right of

association and the right to possess and use property. These rights can be realized only in

society. They make demands on the kinds of social order which should exist and are limited

by the fact of their social interrelation. This general perspective was especially operative

85 Donal Dorr expresses the view that in many ways Pope Pius, like his predecessor, rejected social

evils and denounced them in his encyclical and went on to look at some of the current social issues in a

radical way. He wanted to ensure that the Church’s social teaching was fully up to date and relevant to his

times. See D. DORR, Option for the Poor: A Hundred Years of Vatican Social Teaching, Gill and Macmillan,

Dublin, 1992, 76. 86 See PIUS XI, Non abbiamo bisogno, 49 and 57, Encyclical on Catholic Action in Italy, 29 June

1931 (= NAB), Italian text in AAS, 23 (1931), 285-312; English translation in CARLEN (ed.), Papal

Encyclicals, vol. 3, 445-458. 87 See PIUS XI, Mit brennender Sorge, 12, Encyclical on the Church and the German Reich, 14

March 1937 (= MBS), German text in AAS, 23 (1937), 145-167; English translation in CARLEN (ed.), Papal

Encyclicals, vol. 3, 525-535. 88 See PIUS XI, Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937 (= DR), in AAS 29 (1937), 65-

106; English translation in CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals, vol. 3, 537-554.


in Pius XI’s arguments concerning the right to a just wage, the right to organize and the

economic role of government.89

1.2.3 Pope Pius XII

The pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) was marked by World War II,

repression in the Soviet Union, and the Church’s challenging position in Eastern Europe

after the war. In spite of all this, Pope Pius XII continued to affirm, even more

systematically, the moral roots of social, political and economic order than had any of his

predecessors. Pope Pius XII moved human dignity “from the level of a basic but frequently

implicit first principle of Roman Catholic social morality to the level of explicit and formal

concern.”90 In his Christmas address of 1942, Pope Pius XII, speaking of the dignity of the

human person, stressed respect for rights.

Uphold respect for and the practical realization of the following fundamental personal

rights: the right to maintain and develop one’s corporal, intellectual and moral life and

especially the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in private

and public and carry on religious works of charity; the right to marry and to achieve the

aim of married life; the right to conjugal and domestic society; the right to work, as the

indispensable means of life, and hence, too, of the priesthood or religious life; the right to

the use of material goods in keeping with one’s duties and social limitations.91

In the same address, he affirmed that every person has a right to a governmental and

juridical system which in turn protects all of these personal rights from being attacked.92

Several years later he continued with the same theme. “The right to existence, the right to

respect from others and to one’s good name, the right to one’s own culture and national

character, the right to develop oneself, the right to demand observance of international

treaties, and other like rights, are demanded by the law of nations, dictated by nature

89 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 56. 90 Ibid. 91 See PIUS XII, Christmas Address of 1942, in YZERMANS (ed.), The Major Addresses of Pope Pius

XII, vol. 2, 60-61. 92 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 60.


itself.”93 Thus, through the writings of Pope Pius, we can see the upholding and defending

of human rights and dignity. Certainly, he set the tone for the supreme magisterium of the

future to carry on with this strong concern for human and civil rights.

1.2.4 Pope John XXIII

Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), in his encyclical, Mater et magistra (1961),94

continued the social teaching of his predecessors by asserting the notion of human dignity.

However, he added a new definition of human dignity within the context of socialization

and structural relationships.

The encyclical Pacem in terris of John XIII is one of the greatest papal documents

in history; it was addressed not only to the members of the Catholic Church but to all

humanity. In Pacem in terris, the pope noted that the protection of human rights was the

basis for world peace. The encyclical begins with an affirmation of the central Catholic

social teaching of the dignity of the person.

Any human society, if it is to be well ordered and productive, must lay down as a

foundation this principle, namely, that every human being is a person, that is, his nature is

endowed with intelligence and free will. Indeed, precisely because he is a person he has

rights and obligations flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature. And as

these rights are universal and inviolable, they cannot in any way be surrendered.95

The encyclical reaffirms Pius XII’s assertion that respect for human dignity is

possible only within a “community of morally responsible citizens.” The emphasis

in Mater et magistra is on human interdependence in the world. “The rights which protect

human dignity, therefore, are the rights of persons in community. They are neither

93 See POPE PIUS XII, Address of 6 December 1953, in YZERMANS (ed.), The Major Addresses, vol.

1, St. Paul, North Central Publishing Company, 1961, 270-271. 94 See JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Letter on Christianity and Social Progress Mater et magistra, 15 May

1961 (= MM), in AAS, 53 (1961), 401-464, English translation in TPS, 7 (1962), 295-343. 95 See JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Letter on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity and

Liberty Pacem in terris, 11 April 1963 (= PT), no. 9, in AAS, 55 (1963), 257- 304, English translation, in

TPS, 9 (1963), 15.


exclusively the rights of individuals against the community nor are they the rights of the

community against the individual.”96

Pacem in terris gives a most complete list of these human rights, which includes

both those rights stressed in the liberal democratic tradition and those emphasized by

socialists.97

Rights related to life and an adequate standard of living are the rights to life, bodily

integrity, food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, necessary social services, security in

case of sickness, unemployment, widowhood, old age or unemployment.

As rights concerning moral and cultural values, the encyclical lists the rights to

respect for one’s person, to one’s good reputation, to freedom of communication, to the

pursuit of art, to be informed truthfully; the rights to share in the benefits of culture, to a

basic education and to higher education in keeping with the level of development of one’s

country.

Rights in the area of religious activity include the rights to honor God in accord

with one’s conscience, to practice religion publicly and privately.

In the area of family life are the rights to choose one’s state of life, that is, to set

up a family, with equal rights for men and women, or to choose not to found a family. Also

included are the rights to the economic, social, cultural and moral conditions that are

necessary for the support of family life, and the prior right of parents to educate their

children.

Economic rights include the right to work; the rights to humane working

conditions, to appropriate participation in the management of an economic enterprise, to a

just wage, and to own property within the limits established by social duties.

The encyclical also affirms the rights of assembly and association, the right to

organize societies according to the aims of the members, and the right to organize groups

for the purpose of securing goods which the individual cannot attain alone.

All persons have the rights of freedom of movement and residence and to internal

and external migration when there is just reason for it.

Political rights include the rights to participate in public affairs and to juridical

protection of all one’s human rights.98

The papal teachings on rights from Leo XIII to John XXIII show continual

development and enrichment. For the purpose of this thesis, however, it is glaringly evident

that the concern of these popes was with the political and natural rights of all human beings,

not with the rights of the christifideles that flow from baptism. Assuredly, the dignity and

rights of human beings, which were being abused by governments, needed to be addressed,

96 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 65. 97 See ibid., 66. 98 See PT, no. 11-27, in AAS, 55 (1963), 257- 304, TPS, 9 (1963), 15-19.


but seemingly there was no interest in or recognition of the rights of the faithful in the

Church. Certainly, such rights existed in canon law, as will be seen in the fifth section of

this chapter. These rights were not, however, a concern of the supreme magisterium. This

approach would change in dramatic fashion at Vatican II, which declared a host of rights

common to the Christian faithful flowing from their baptism.

1.3 Teachings of the Second Vatican Council on Fundamental Ecclesial

Rights

The Second Vatican Council addressed the issue of rights numerous times in various

documents and different contexts. In this respect, Vatican II reemphasized many of the

teachings on rights of the supreme magisterium from Popes Leo XIII to John XXIII. Of

primary interest to this thesis, however, is the Council’s enunciation of the ecclesial rights

of the baptized Christian faithful (christifideles), in particular, the Catholic faithful. The

focus of this thesis is on the fundamental rights that are particular to the christifidelis, which

originate from Christian baptism and canon law. These rights, as treated at Vatican II, are

aptly categorized as follows.

the right to fair and equal treatment under the law based on the fundamental equality

of all the faithful;

the right and duty to pursue holiness of life;

the right and duty to announce the good news of salvation to the whole world;

the right and duty to make known one’s needs to ecclesiastical authority;

the right and duty to state freely one’s opinions;

the right to receive the spiritual goods of the Church;

the right to one’s own spirituality;

the right to observe one’s own rite;

the right and duty to support the ministers and works of the Church;

the right to associate freely in the Church;

the right to free inquiry in the sacred disciplines;

the right to undertake works on one’s own initiative;


the right of preserving, professing and defending the faith.99

For purposes of this study, this schema of rights may be more suitably grouped together in

three categories: spiritual rights, rights to participate in the Church’s mission, and personal

rights.

1.3.1 Spiritual rights

There are four spiritual rights of the Christian faithful addressed by the Fathers of

the Second Vatican Council. These are the right and duty to pursue holiness of life, the

right to receive the spiritual goods of the Church, the right to one’s own spirituality, and

the right to observe one’s own rite.

1.3.1.1 The right to pursue holiness of life

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium100 has several themes,

especially in chapters two and four, with extremely valuable doctrinal foundations for the

development of the rights of the faithful in the Church.101 However, chapter five of Lumen

gentium, which is on the universal call to holiness (no. 40), states that Jesus Christ taught

99 This list is based on one prepared originally by Jean Beyer, but it has been shortened here to focus

on rights specific to the Christian faithful. Cf. J. BEYER, “De statuto iuridico Christifidelium iuxta vota Synodi

Episcoporum in novo Codice Iuris condendo,” in Periodica, 57 (1968), 550-581 (=Beyer, “De statuto iuridico

christifidelium iuxta vota Synodi Episcoporum in novo Codice Iuris condendo”). For an analysis comparing

rights in the Church to the individual articles of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, see also J. BEYER,

“De iuribus humanis fundamentalibus in statuto iuridico Christifidelium assumendis,” in Periodica, 58

(1969), 27-58 (=BEYER, “De iuribus humanis fundamentalibus in statuto iuridico Christifidelium

assumendis”). See also T.J. PAPROCKI, Vindication of Defense of the Rights of the Christian Faithful through

Administrative Recourse in the Local Church, JCD dissertation, Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 1991, 178-

180 (=PAPROCKI, Vindication of Defense of the Rights of the Christian Faithful).

Moreover, another fundamental right mentioned at Vatican II did not find its way into the Code,

namely, the right to objective information from the news media. See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on

the Means of Social Communication Inter mirifica, 4 December 1963 (=IM), in AAS, 56 (1964), 145-153,

English translation in FLANNERY1, 283-292, particularly IM, no. 5 in AAS, 56 (1964), 47, FLANNERY1, 285-

286. See also SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965 (=GS), in AAS, 58 (1966), 1025-1120, English translation in FLANNERY1,

903-1001, particularly GS, no. 26 in AAS, 58 (1966), 1046-1047, FLANNERY1, 927-928. 100 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 21

November, 1964 (= LG), in AAS, 57 (1965), 5-75, English translation in FLANNERY1, 350-426. 101 See LOMBARDÍA, “The Fundamental Rights of the Faithful,” 43.


His disciples to be holy no matter what their condition of life.102 Lumen gentium no. 41

emphasizes that holiness is one; it has no subjective qualification and is the same for

everyone. Every person must walk according to one’s own personal gifts and path of living

in order to devote their lives to works of mercy and charity. Therefore, all are called to

holiness and perfection, modeled after the Lord Jesus, divine teacher and model of

perfection.103 In understanding Lumen gentium no. 41 as the right to holiness, we find the

usage of the word debet which means “must.” (Unusquisque vero secundum propria dona

et munera per viam fidei vivae, quae spem excitat et per caritatem operatur, incunctanter

incedere debet.) Here the usage of the word debet is a strong word connoting more than an

obligation. It also could signify an implicit right as well, that is to say, if holiness is an

obligation of the faithful, the whole Church must assist all the faithful with the means of

striving for holiness. In order to achieve this holiness, one has to spend time before God in

participating in the Eucharist, the sacred liturgy, and prayer (LG, no. 42).104 The common

pursuit of holiness among all the faithful contributes to the transformation of the world

according to God’s salvific will (LG, no. 40).105

1.3.1.2 The right to receive the spiritual goods of the Church

Lumen gentium points out that the faithful are incorporated into the Church by

baptism and appointed by their baptismal character to Christian worship and professing

their faith.106 This incorporation is therefore sacramentum et res in this sacrament of

102 See LG, no. 40, in AAS, 57 (1965), 44-45, FLANNERY1, 396-398. 103 See LG, no. 41, in AAS, 57 (1965), 45-47, FLANNERY1, 398-400. 104 See LG, no. 42, in AAS, 57 (1965), 47-49, FLANNERY1, 400-402. 105 See LG, no. 40, in AAS, 57 (1965), 44-45, FLANNERY1, 396-398. 106 See ibid., 361-362.


Christian initiation.107 Lumen gentium no. 37 explicitly expresses that the faithful have the

right to receive from their pastors the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of

God and the sacraments.108

1.3.1.3 The right to one’s own spirituality

The faithful have the right to have the spirituality of their choice, provided it is in

keeping with the teaching of the Church. This right recognizes that there are various

spiritualties. No single document of Vatican II is the source of this right, but it is based on

several conciliar texts.109 In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum

concilium,110 the Council declares that holy Mother Church holds every lawfully

acknowledged rite to be of equal right and dignity.111 The Decree on the Eastern Churches

Orientalium Ecclesiarum112 speaks of the Churches, both Eastern and Western, which have

some significant differences among them. However, the Churches are of equal rank even

if differing in their liturgical, ecclesiastical and spiritual traditions.113

1.3.1.4 The right to observe one’s own rite

The faithful have the right to observe their own particular rite. This is a right to

worship in one’s own liturgical rite and to belong to one’s own ritual Church, later to be

called a Church sui iuris. This basic right is guaranteed by some conciliar documents. As

already noted, Sacrosanctum concilium no. 4 says that the Sacred Council declares that the

107 See K. RAHNER, The Church and the Sacraments, Freiburg, Herder, 1963, 88 (=RAHNER, The

Church and the Sacraments). 108 See LG, no. 37, in AAS, 57 (1965), 42-43, FLANNERY1, 394-395. 109 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 148. 110 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium, 4

December, 1963 (=SC), in AAS, 56 (1964), 97-138, English translation in FLANNERY1, 1-36. 111 See SC, no. 4, in AAS, 56 (1964), 98, FLANNERY1, 2. 112 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches Orientalium

Ecclesiarum, 21 November, 1964 (=OE), in AAS, 57 (1965), 76-85, English translation in FLANNERY1, 441-

451. 113 See OE, no. 3, in AAS, 57 (1965), 77, FLANNERY1, 442.


Church holds every lawfully recognized rite to be of equal right and dignity.114

Commenting on this, Jungmann says that the Council employed the phrase legitime

agnitos, which embraces the present and the future, that is, that new Churches sui iuris and

even new rites could still be recognized.115

1.3.2 Rights to participate in the Church’s mission

Three additional rights of the faithful enunciated at Vatican II pertain to their

participation in the mission of the Church entrusted to it by its divine founder. These are

the right and duty to announce the good news of salvation to the whole world; the right of

preserving, professing and defending the faith; and the right to undertake works on one’s

own initiative.

1.3.2.1 The right to announce the good news of salvation

Lumen gentium no. 33 explicitly mentions the right and duty of the lay Christian

faithful to announce the good news of salvation to the whole world, but this right and duty

applies equally to all the faithful, not just to the laity. The conciliar text emphasizes the

responsibility to cooperate in this mission and also the capacity to be appointed to some

ecclesiastical offices (munera) with a view to a spiritual end.116 There is a strong emphasis

with regard to the obligation of spreading the faith according to each one’s ability.117 The

duty that the faithful have to be apostles implicitly gives them a corresponding right to

participate in the redemptive work of the Church in so far as they are able according to

their circumstances. However, pastors of the Church must acknowledge this right by

114 See SC, no. 4. in AAS, 56 (1964), 98, FLANNERY1, 2. 115 See J. JUNGMANN, “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” in VORGRIMLER, H. (ed.), Commentary

on the Documents of Vatican II, Freiburg, Herder and Herder, 1967-1979, 5 vols., vol. 1, 9 (=JUNGMANN,

“Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”). 116 See LG, no. 33, in AAS, 57 (1965), 39, FLANNERY1, 390-391. 117 See LG, no. 17, in AAS, 57 (1965), 20-21, FLANNERY1, 368-369.


clearing the way in every respect (undequaque) for the mission of announcing the good

news of salvation to the whole world. For this purpose, the faithful need not have to wait

for a mandate but may do it on their own initiative.118

Ad gentes divinitus, the Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity,119 lays

emphasis on the faithful becoming missionaries and working for the missions of the Church

as their true right and obligation. Evangelization is the fundamental task of the people of

God by way of witness to and cooperation in the Church’s mission in the world.120

1.3.2.2 The right of preserving, professing and defending the faith

Lumen gentium no. 11 points out that the faithful are incorporated into the Church

by baptism and appointed by their baptismal character to Christian worship and professing

their faith.121 Klostermann refers to the baptism of the faithful as the source of their

apostolic vocation and apostolic life. All are called (vocantur) without exception by virtue

of their incorporation in the People of God, in the one body of Christ, under the one Head,

Christ. This nature, dignity and right are common to all faithful.122 The faithful have the

duty of working for the ever greater extension of the divine plan of salvation to all people

of every time and every place. Thus, this explicit duty of the faithful gives them the implicit

right of preserving, professing and defending the faith.123

118 See F. KLOSTERMANN, “The Laity,” in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 1, 243

(=KLOSTERMANN, “The Laity”). 119 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity Ad gentes divinitus,

7 December, 1965 (= AG), in AAS, 58 (1966), 947-990, English translation in FLANNERY1, 813-856. 120 See AG, nos. 35-37, in AAS, 58 (1965), 983-984, FLANNERY1, 849-851. 121 See LG, no. 11, in AAS, 57 (1965), 15-16, FLANNERY1, 361-362. 122 See KLOSTERMANN, “The Laity,” 240. 123 See LG, no. 33, in AAS, 57 (1965), 39, FLANNERY1, 390-391.


1.3.2.3 The right to undertake works on one’s own initiative

Lumen gentium no. 37 begins by saying, “Like all the Christians,” and then goes on

to speak about the lay faithful’s right to undertake apostolic works on their own initiative

in virtue of their baptism and confirmation. An emphasis is laid on the pastors with regard

to assisting and guiding the laity in realizing this right. The pastors should give them the

courage to undertake works on their own initiative.124 The council certainly turns to the

sacred pastors in reminding them of their duty to acknowledge and foster dignity and the

co-responsibility of faithful in the Church, not just taking their advice but giving them

freedom of action which will encourage their initiative and not hinder it.125

1.3.3 Personal rights

The rights in this third category of rights addressed at the Second Vatican Council

may be classified as individual or personal ecclesial rights. These are the right and duty to

make known one’s needs to ecclesiastical authority, the right and duty to state freely one’s

opinions, the right to associate freely in the Church, and the right to instruction and free

inquiry in the sacred disciplines.

1.3.3.1 The right to express one’s needs

Lumen gentium no. 37 says the lay faithful should freely disclose their needs and

desires to their pastors. Implied here is a right to do so, which right applies equally to the

clergy as it does to the laity. The document continues, saying that by reason of the

knowledge, competence or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—

indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the

good of the Church. The faithful also show obedience to their sacred pastors in matters of

124 See LG, no. 37, in AAS, 57 (1965), 42-43, FLANNERY1, 394-395. 125 See KLOSTERMANN, “The Laity,” 251.


faith, and the pastors indeed should recognize and promote the dignity and responsibility

of the laity.126 The relationship between the faithful and the pastors is not simply passive

or dependent; they have an active role to play which involves giving their views, in keeping

with their knowledge, professional qualifications, and positions in the civil society. Thus,

they should make a positive contribution to the Church and build the Church for tomorrow

along with the pastors.127 Everything said of the laity in this context equally applies to the

clergy as well.

1.3.3.2 The right to freedom of research

Gaudium et spes128 no. 62 concerns the integration of Christian faith in modern

culture. In its treatment of those who engage in theological studies, it states: “… the

faithful, both clerical and lay, should be accorded a lawful freedom of inquiry, of thought,

and of expression, tempered by humility and courage in whatever branch of study they

have specialized.”129 Commenting on this, Roberto Tucci points out that the duty of

Christians is to learn how to bring out the harmony between science and doctrine, infusing

new discoveries with morality and Christian thought.130

1.3.3.3 The right to associate freely in the Church

Gaudium et spes no. 68 emphasizes that the faithful have the right to form

associations and participate in them to serve the mission of the Church in the world. Due

recognition and support is to be given by the pastors to these associations of the Christian

126 See LG, no. 37, in AAS, 57 (1965), 42-43, FLANNERY1, 394-395. 127 See KLOSTERMANN, “The Laity,”250. 128 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World

Gaudium et spes, 7 December, 1965 (=GS), in AAS, 58 (1966), 1025-1120, English translation in FLANNERY1,

903-1001. 129 See GS, no. 62, in AAS, 58 (1966), 1082-1084, FLANNERY1, 968. 130 See R. TUCCI, “The Proper Development of Culture,” in Commentary on the Documents of

Vatican II, vol. 5, 279 (=TUCCI, “The Proper Development of Culture”).


faithful.131 Apostolicam actuositatem no. 21 clearly calls for the promotion and support of

associations among the faithful.132 Implicit here is a right to associate, a right which equally

pertains to clerics. Commenting on Apostolicam actuositatem no.21, Klostermann says that

the hierarchy should see associations as appropriate, valued and favored for the people.133

1.3.3.4 The right to instruction and free inquiry in the sacred disciplines

Gravissimum educationis, the Declaration on Christian Education,134 stresses the

value and role of such education in the life of Christian faithful. Gravissimum educationis

no. 10 says that every person has a right to an education, including religious formation.

The Catholic universities have a responsibility to provide means to advance the faithful’s

knowledge of the sacred sciences. This investigation should be particular to higher

scientific studies; special attention should be given primarily to the development of

scientific inquiry.135 Gravissimum educationis no. 2 identifies specifically the right to a

Christian education. Since all Christians have become children of God by rebirth of water

and the Holy Spirit, they have a right to a Christian education. This education helps the

person to maturity in the Christian life and in the knowledge of the mystery of salvation.136

Tucci also expresses that this freedom enshrined here should always be exercised with due

respect for the dignity of human person, and to this there also belongs the liberty of inquiry

which is acknowledged to be the right of the faithful.137 The Council’s attention is on the

integration of specialized branches of knowledge into a wider and more comprehensive

131 See GS, no. 68, in AAS, 58 (1965), 1089-1090, FLANNERY1, 974. 132 See AA, no. 21, in AAS, 58 (1966), 855, FLANNERY1, 788. 133 See F. KLOSTERMANN, “Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity,” in Commentary on the

Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, 366 (=KLOSTERMANN, “Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity”). 134 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum educationis,

28 October 1965 (= GE), in AAS, 58 (1966), 728-756, FLANNERY1, 725-737. 135 See GE, no. 10, in AAS, 58 (1966), 736-738, FLANNERY1, 735-736. 136 See GE, no. 2, in AAS, 58 (1966), 730-731; TANNER2, 959-968. 137 See TUCCI, “The Proper Development of Culture,” 286.


view of reality. Thus, this opens to the bigger picture, the meaning and reality of the

world.138

1.4 Papal Teachings on Rights after Vatican II

The popes after Vatican II maintained the practice of teaching about the

fundamental rights of persons. This section treats key teachings of Popes Paul VI, John

Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. We shall see that these popes continued in the tradition

of their predecessors, stressing the important natural, human rights applicable to all people,

not the unique rights of the christifidelis flowing from baptism and protected in canon law.

1.4.1 Pope Paul VI

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) contributed two major statements on social morality, the

encyclical Populorum progressio (1967)139 and Octogesima adveniens (1971),140 the latter

being an apostolic letter commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Rerum novarum.141

Populorum progressio emphasizes that the beginning, the subject and the goal of all social

institutions must be the human person. Development and growth must be integral; it must

clearly provide for the progress of each individual and of the whole person.142 Quentin

Lauer point outs that Populorum progressio makes a noteworthy advancement in the way

the tradition affirms the importance of material well-being for the realization of human

dignity.143 It also states that development is only possible through mutual respect and

138 See ibid., 276. 139 See PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio, 26 March 1967 (=PP), in AAS, 59 (1967),

257-299, English translation in TPS, 12 (1967), 144-172. 140 See PAUL VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima adveniens, 14 May 1971 (= OA), in AAS, 63 (1971),

401-441, English translation, in TPS, 16 (1971), 137-164. 141 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 78. 142 See PP, no. 14, in AAS, 59 (1967), 264, TPS, 12 (1967), 149. 143 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 79.


mutual effort by which the development of the individual and the human race progresses.144

Hollenbach remarks:

Development of persons must simultaneously include progress on the material

level and greater realization of the higher values of human existence. Human dignity can

only be respected and realized within a society when the essentially moral call to mutual

interdependence is heeded. This does not imply that all the desires and freedoms of all

people will be realized in an unlimited way in such a society. Rather, Populorum

progressio argues that when human dignity is treated with mutual respect, a society, which

is morally developed, will be realized.145

Octagesima adveniensis addressed to Cardinal Maurice Roy, president of the

Pontifical Commission on Justice and Peace, which was established by Paul VI. It is likely

that Octogesima adveniens was intended to give prominence to that body. Pope Paul VI

begins this letter by urging greater efforts for justice and inviting the local Churches to

respond to specific situations. The pope then discusses a wide variety of new social

problems which stem from urbanization. These issues include women, youth, and the “new

poor.” Sections 8 through 21 address specific social concerns. The topic receiving the most

attention in these sections is the impact of urbanization. Paul VI decries large urban areas

with vast numbers of poor people living in substandard conditions. He expresses a vision

whereby Christians can bring “a message of hope” to the city and states that “this can be

done by brotherhood which is lived and by concrete justice.”146 The pope then goes on to

stress that equality and participation need to be ensured in the everyday lives of people.

Legislation for justice is necessary, and the gospel always invites us to charity and special

love for the poor. Preferential respect for the poor is important, and in that way the common

good is upheld.147 Pope Paul VI truly understood the importance of human dignity and

144 See PP, no. 43, in AAS, 59 (1967), 278-279, TPS, 12 (1967), 158. 145 See HOLLENBACH, Claims in Conflict, 82. 146 See OA, nos. 8-21, in AAS, 63 (1971), 406-417, TPS, 16 (1971), 141-148. 147 See ibid., 148-149.


rights as evidenced by his stress on the equality and the right of all people to participate in

society.

1.4.2 Pope John Paul II

The pastoral ministry of Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) was centered on the dignity

and well-being of the human person.148 The pope was a passionate apostle of human dignity

and rights. He repeatedly stressed that the human person must be treated with respect and

dignity in all circumstances. In his address to the United Nations in 1979, he emphasized

human rights, including some of the most important human rights that are universally

recognized.

… the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to food, clothing,

housing, sufficient health care, rest and leisure; the right to freedom of expression,

education and culture; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the

right to manifest one’s religion either individually or in community, in public or private;

the right to choose a state of life, to found a family and to enjoy all conditions necessary

for family life; the right to property and work, to adequate working conditions and a just

wage; the right of assembly and association; the right to freedom of movement, to internal

and external migration; the right to nationality and residence; the right to political

participation and the right to participate in the free choice of the political system of people

to which one belongs.”149

This dignity includes “the imitation and following of Christ, communion with one

another and the missionary mandate.”150 In order to implement the Second Vatican Council

in his diocese, the then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla wrote a book called Sources of Renewal.

In that book, he insisted that the dignity of all the faithful is “at one and the same time

148For a collection of Pope John Paul II’s statements and addresses on the promotion of human

dignity and rights, see A. DUPUY, Words That Matter: The Holy See in Multilateral Diplomacy: Anthology

(1970-2000),Vatican City, The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, New York, The Path to Peace

Foundation, 2003 (=DUPUY, Words That Matter); ID., Pope John Paul II and the Challenges of Papal

Diplomacy: Anthology (1978-2003),The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, New York, The Path to

Peace Foundation, 2004 (=DUPUY, Pope John Paul II and the Challenges of Papal Diplomacy). 149 See JOHN PAUL II, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, On Pilgrimage, 2 October

1979, no. 13, in Origins, 9 (1979-1980), 257-266, 262. 150 See JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America, 22 January 1999, no. 44, English

translation in Origins, 28 (1998-1999), 565-592, 579.


human dignity, which belongs to each man as an individual, and Christian dignity in the

order of grace.”151 The dignity of the human person, created in the image and likeness of

God, and redeemed by the death and resurrection of the Son of God, is a biblical idea that

unifies his theology, especially his social teachings. The human being “must always be an

end and not a means, a subject and not an object.”152

In John Paul’s numerous writings and speeches, he continually restated the gospel’s

emphasis on the dignity of every human life and emphasized that the Church has the duty

to proclaim its message of justice and denounce any individual, program or system that

neglects or exploits the human rights that are integral to human dignity.153 These emphases

are seen in his first encyclical Redemptor hominis (1979)154 and in the subsequent

encyclicals Laborem exercens (1981),155 Sollicitudo rei socialis (1987),156 Redemptoris

151 See K. WOJTYLA, Sources of Renewal: The Implementation of the Second Vatican Council,

translated by P.S. Falla, London, Collins, 1980, 143 (=WOJTYLA, Sources of Renewal). 152 See JOHN PAUL II, “Towards a Common Ethical Code for Humankind: Address to the Pontifical

Academy of Social Sciences 2001,” in Concilium, 4 (2001), 13. 153 Avery DULLES points out that Redemptor hominis, a predominantly Christological encyclical,

“sounds a number of themes that will be pursued in other documents and shows how these are connected

with the central idea of human dignity founded upon the gifts of creation and redemption. It presents human

dignity and liberation as the central focus of the Church’s proclamation;” in The Splendor of Faith: The

Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II, New York, Crossroad, 1999, 10. HOLLENBACH argues that human

rights are based on human dignity which is the source of all moral principles, not a moral principle itself; in

Claims in Conflict, 90. 154 See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor hominis, 4 March 1979 (= RH), in AAS, 71

(1979), 257- 324, English translation in Origins, 8 (1978-1979), 625-644. 155 See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens on the Commemoration of the Ninetieth

Anniversary of Rerum novarum, 14 September 1981 (= LE), in AAS, 73 (1981), 577-647, English translation

in TPS, 26 (1981), 289-336. 156 See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo rei socialis, 30 December 1987 (= SRS), in AAS,

80 (1988), 513-586, English translation in TPS, 33 (1988), 122-155.


missio (1990),157 Centesimus annus (1991),158 Veritatis splendor (1993),159 as well as in

his longest encyclical Evangelium vitae (1995).160

The encyclical letter Redemptor hominis stresses that human dignity is based on the

doctrines of creation and redemption. In this encyclical, the pope insists that individuals

and communities should “set a rigorous respect” for the moral, spiritual and cultural values

on the basis of the dignity of the person. From the Catholic viewpoint, the ultimate source

of human rights is one’s relationship with the person of Jesus Christ who redeemed all

humanity from their sins and restored them to their original dignity.161 The pope quotes the

words of Christ, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” These words

remind us of our fundamental freedom,162 that all citizens have the right and duty to seek

the truth about God and profess their faith. The state must safeguard this right and not

impose atheism or discriminate against citizens with regard to their faith. The Pope’s

teaching on the human right to religious freedom was greatly influenced by the Vatican II

157 The Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio emphasizes that, on her part, the Church addresses

people with full respect for their freedom; her mission does not restrict freedom but promotes it. See JOHN

PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 7 December 1990 (= RM), in AAS, 83 (1991), 249-340, no.

39, English translation in Origins, 20 (1990-1991), 543-568. 158 In the Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus, the Pope declares very clearly that today’s democratic

state needs “an authentic and solid foundation through the explicit recognition of rights” and that the Church’s

position and role are not simply based on natural law or simple humanitarian concern but on the

Christological vision. In defending her own freedom, the Church defends the dignity of the human person.

See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter for the 100 years of Rerum novarum, “Centesimus annus,” 1 May 1991

(= CA), in AAS, 83 (1991), 793-867, nos. 47, 45; English translation, in O’ BRIEN, Catholic Social Thought,

437-488. 159 In the Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, the Pope brings out the relationship between freedom

and truth, and he insists that freedom is bound to the truth. This is a strict moral obligation to seek the truth

and to adhere to it once it is known. See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, 6 August 1993

(= VS), in AAS, 85 (1993), 1133-1228, no. 34, English translation, in Origins, 23 (1993-1994) 297-334. 160 The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae is a vigorous response to scientifically and systematically

programmed threats against life (EV 17). Of all the rights that we cherish, the right to life stands as the central

and key right of everyone. The main theme of Evangelium vitae is life; the Pope condemns the two main

moral evils of our time, abortion and euthanasia. See JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 25

March 1995 (=EV), in AAS, 87 (1995), 401-522, no. 63, English translation in TPS, 40 (1995), 199-281. 161 See RH, no. 10, in AAS, 63 (1971), 274-275, Origins, 8 (1978-1979), 631. 162 See RH, no. 12, in AAS, 63 (1971), 278-281, Origins, 8 (1978-1979), 632-633.


Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis humanae.163 John Paul II forcefully stated that

the “curtailment of the religious freedom of individuals and communities is not only a

painful experience, but it is above all an attack on man’s very dignity, independently of the

religion professed or of the concept of the world which these individuals and communities

have. The curtailment and violation of religious freedom are in contrast with man’s dignity

and his objective rights” (RH, no. 17).164

The encyclical letter Laborem exercens stresses the Church’s role always to protect

the dignity and rights of those who work.165 A great emphasis has been placed on the issues

of the right of workers to employment and a just wage, the right to form unions, and the

rights and responsibilities of management towards all workers.166 In this encyclical, John

Paul II points out that one’s labor is an expression of human dignity. He comes out strongly

for the conviction that capital cannot be the sole measure of human labor. Through work,

human beings achieve a deeper realization of their personhood and affirm their

membership in the state.167

The encyclical letter Sollicitudo rei socialis focuses on the issue of human

development and points out the false and harmful dimensions of development. The

encyclical offers principles for reflection, action and criteria for judgment.168 The pope

expresses concern about various kinds of oppression towards workers in the name of

163 See SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis humanae, 7

December 1965 (=DH), in AAS, 58 (1966), 929-946, English translation in Flannery1, 799-812.

The thought of the American theologian, John Courtney MURRAY, had a profound impact on the

drafting of DH. See especially his book, We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American

Proposition, New York, Sheed and Ward, 1960. For some critical observations, see John T. PAWLIKOWSKI,

“Walking with, and beyond, John Courtney Murray,” in New Theology Review, 9 (August 1996), 20-40. 164 See RH, no. 17 in AAS, 63 (1971), 295-300, Origins, 8 (1978-1979), 636-637. 165 See LE, no. 1, in AAS, 73 (1981), 578-580, TPS, 26 (1981), 289-291. 166 See LE, nos. 16-23, in AAS, 73 (1981), 618-637, TPS, 26 (1981), 316-328. 167 See LE, nos. 24-27, in AAS, 73 (1981), 637-647, TPS, 26 (1981), 328-336. 168 See SRS no. 8, in AAS, 80 (1988), 519-520, TPS, 33 (1988), 125.


development. The right of economic initiative is often suppressed, and the worker’s passive

submission to management and authority takes away their creativity and freedom, thereby

destroying the creative subjectivity of the citizen.169 John Paul II points out the duty of the

Church towards the workers because human dignity and human rights are not a secondary

but rather integral part of her mission.170

1.4.3 Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2013), in the inaugural encyclical of his pontificate,

Deus caritas est,171 makes a distinction with regard to the Church’s commitment to the

ministry of charity and justice and points out that justice belongs to the state and the Church

respectively. “A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet

the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the

demands of the common good is something which concerns the whole Church.”172

Benedict stresses that the Church, through her charitable work worldwide, should protect

the dignity and well-being of human beings living in poverty and suffering, and this is the

indispensable expression of her very being.173 The pope places the ministry of charity as

an important element because, undoubtedly, justice always springs forth from charity.

Reflecting on the encyclical Deus caritas est, Charles M. Murphy argues that the pope

places charity, not justice, as the constitutive element of the Church’s mission.174

169 See SRS no. 15, in AAS, 80 (1988), 528-530, TPS, 33 (1988), 129-130. 170 See SRS no. 47, in AAS, 80 (1988), 579-582, TPS, 33 (1988), 152-154. 171 See BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus caritas est, 25 December 2005 (= DCE), in AAS 98

(2006), 217-252, English translation in Origins, 35 (2005-2006), 541-557. 172 See DCE, no. 28, in AAS 98 (2006), 238-240, Origins, 35 (2005-2006), 550-551. 173 See DCE, no. 25, in AAS 98 (2006), 236-237, Origins, 35 (2005-2006), 550. 174 See C.M. Murphy, “Charity, Not Justice as Constitutive of the Church’s Mission,” in Theological

Studies, 68 (2007), 274-286 (=Murphy, “Charity, Not Justice as Constitutive of the Church’s Mission”).


In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the United Nations General Assembly on the

sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In his address, Benedict

stressed the significance of human rights and the accompanying responsibilities to

safeguard and enable their exercise.175

1.4.4 Pope Francis

From the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis (2013- ) has stressed human

dignity and human rights, especially of the poor and suffering. Particularly in his writings

Laudato si176 and Amoris laetitia,177 we see his concern for all God’s people.

During his papal visit to Albania, the pontiff emphasized the rights of people by

saying, “May no one use religion as a pretext for actions against human dignity and against

the fundamental rights of every man and woman, above all to the right to life and the right

of everyone to religious freedom.”178 During his weekly general audience on 7 December

2016, the pontiff drew the attention of the people to two upcoming important days

promoted by the United Nations: one against corruption on 9 December and the other in

favor of human rights on 10 December. The pope said, “these are two closely linked

175 See BENEDICT XVI, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 18 April 2008, in

L’Osservatore Romano, English ed., 23 April 2008, 12-13. 176 Encyclical Letter on Care for Our Common Home Laudato si’, 4 May 2015, Libreria editrice

Vaticana, 2015, English translation Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: on Care for Our Common

Home, London, Melville House, 2015. 177 Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on love in the family Amoris laetitia, 19 March

2016, Vatican English version Amoris laetitia: On Love in the Family, New York, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press,

2016. See also F.G. MORRISEY, “Outline for a Spirituality of the Family in the Light of the Apostolic

Exhortation Amoris laetitia,” in The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland Newsletter, 188 (2016),

31-45 (=MORRISEY, “Outline for a Spirituality of the Family”); ID., “Some Pastoral Implications Arising

from Chapter VIII of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia,” in The Canon Law Society of Great Britain

and Ireland, 186 (2016), 53-80 (=MORRISEY, “Some Pastoral Implications Arising from Chapter VIII”), G.P.

DI NICOLA and A. DANESE, “Notes on Amoris laetitia,” in INTAMS Review, 22 (2016), 3-14 (=DI NICOLA,

“Notes on Amoris laetitia”); L. MAGESA, “The Conscience of the African Church in the Synod on the Family

and Amoris laetitia,” in INTAMS Review, 22 (2016), 154-168 (=MAGESA, “The Conscience of the African

Church”). 178 FRANCIS, Speech during the Papal Visit to Albania, 21 September 2014, “There can be peace

among different religions,” in L’Osservatore Romano, English ed., 26 September, 2014, 7.


realities: corruption is the negative aspect to be fought against, beginning with personal

conscience and monitoring the spheres of civil life, especially those most at risk; human

rights are the positive aspect, to advance with ever renewed determination, so that no one

may be excluded from the effective recognition of the fundamental rights of the human

person. May the Lord support us in this twofold tasks.”179

In his apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, Francis affirms that the dignity of all

people should be respected, regardless of sexual orientation, and that any form of

discrimination or aggression is to be avoided (AL, no. 250). He points out that the equal

dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see the old forms of discrimination

disappear and there is growing reciprocity (AL, no. 54).180 He also mentions the wise use

of freedom in the family (AL, no. 274).181 When addressing the various pastoral situations

of couples, Pope Francis states that the Church does not disregard the constitutive elements

of marriage in these situations; but he wishes the Church to offer “pastoral care that is

merciful and helpful” (AL, nos. 292-293).182

1.5 The Universal Law on the Rights of the Faithful 1917 Code to 1983

Code

In this section we turn from papal and conciliar teachings on rights to the universal

laws on rights, moving from the supreme magisterium to the supreme legislator. We begin

179 ID., Hope and virtues of the little ones, during the General Audience, 7 December 2016, in

L’Osservatore Romano, English ed., 9 December, 2016, 3. 180 See ibid., 37. 181 See ibid., 193. 182 See ibid., 208-209.


with the first Code of Canon Law of 1917.183 We then take up the process of the revision

of this first Code with respect to fundamental rights.

1.5.1 Rights of the faithful in the 1917 Code

Unlike the 1983 Code, the first Code of 1917 did not have an explicit listing of

rights of all the faithful. In the 1917 Code, it was indicated that baptism constituted one a

person in the Church with all the rights and duties proper to Christians (CIC/17, c. 87). It

did not list what these rights might be; however, it made a passing reference to an implied

right in saying that lay persons were not to be denied sacraments without cause (CIC/17,

c. 682).184 The 1917 Code concentrated on the rights and duties of specific groups within

the Church, especially clerics (CIC/17, cc.118-144), religious (CIC/17, cc. 592-631) and

specific office holders. These were mixed with various lists of privileges, which may help

to understand the perspective of the 1917 Code.185 If it were to be understood as part of an

absolute monarchical system of governance, then these rights were considered a concession

of the sovereign and in this sense were privileges granted to certain persons but not to

others.186

This legislation of the Church gave explicit recognition to the rights of the faithful

in only one canon, but it only refers to the lay faithful. The laity were said to have the right

to receive from the clergy the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the means necessary

for salvation (CIC/17, c. 682).187 Oddly, the clergy themselves were not acknowledged as

183Codex iuris canonici, Pii X Pontificis Maximii iussudigestus, Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate

promulgatus, Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, English translation E.N. PETERS, The 1917 Pio-Benedictine

Code of Canon Law, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2001. All references to the canons of the 1917 Code will

be styled “CIC/17, c.” for canon and “CIC/17, cc.” for canons, followed by the canon numbers(s). 184 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 134. 185 See ibid. 186 See ibid. 187 Canon 682. Laici ius habent recipiendi a clero, ad normam ecclesiasticae disciplinae, spiritualia

bona et potissimum adiumenta ad salutem necessaria.


having this right, despite the fact that clerics included those in tonsure and the minor orders

who also would need these spiritual aids. However, there is a general acknowledgement of

the rights of all the faithful in c. 87, which highlights the implications of baptism. By

baptism, it says, a human being is constituted a person in the Church of Christ with all of

the rights and duties of Christians unless, in what applies to rights, some bar obstructs,

impeding the bond of ecclesiastical communion, or there is a censure laid down by the

Church.188

1.5.2 Implicit rights in the 1917 Code

There were a number of implicit rights of the faithful in the 1917 Code. The faithful

had the implicit right to go for the exercise of divine cult in sacred buildings dedicated for

worship (CIC/17, c. 1161).189 This canon actually coined the term ‘all the Christian

faithful’. The faithful had an implicit right to just wages and fair treatment for Church

workers (CIC/17, c. 1524).190 A canon on the interpretation of laws pointed out the positive

canonical attitude toward rights. It said that any law that restricts the free exercise of rights

must be interpreted strictly or narrowly (CIC/17, c. 19). In the canonical tradition, it was

understood that the principle of human liberty should be minimally restricted.191 Also in

the 1917 Code were many procedural rights common to all the faithful, especially in Book

IV, De processibus. Procedures were laid down for the defense and vindication of rights

188 Canon 87. Baptismate homo constituitur in Ecelesia Christi persona cum omnibus christianorum

iuribus et officiis, nisi, ad iura quod attinet, obstet obex, ecclesiasticae communionis vinculum impediens,

vel lata ab Ecclesia censura. 189 Canon 1161. Ecclesiae nomine intelligitur aedes sacra divino cultui dedicata eum potissimum in

finem ut omnibus Christifidelibus usui sit ad divinum cultum publice exercendum. 190 Canon 1524. Omnes, et praesertim clerici, religiosi ac rerum ecclesiasticarum administratores, in

operum locatione debent assignare operariis honestam iustamque mercedem; curare ut iidem pietati, idoneo

temporis spatio, vacent; nullo pacto eos abducere a domestica cura parsimoniaeque studio, neque plus eisdem

imponere operis quam vires ferre queant neque id genus quod cum aetate sexuque dissideat. 191 See CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, 5.


(CIC/17, cc. 1646 ff.),192 even if these procedures often were not accessible in actual

practice.

1.5.3 The revision of the 1917 Code

While there was the beginning of a change in attitude about rights even at the time

of the promulgation of the 1917 Code, the law did not yet express that change. “The

dichotomy between Church teaching on human rights in society and the provisions of

Church law did not at first raise serious problems for canonists.”193 With the effects of

World War II, both Church and civil leaders began to look more and more at the question

of rights as being innate to human nature. “The magisterium spoke forcefully in defense of

human rights and in the promotion of human dignity.”194 We have seen that Vatican

Council II brought about the greatest change in the awareness of rights within the Church.

“The basic paradigm of the Church as a sovereign state, i.e., the paradigm on which the

1917 Code was based, was shifted to a more biblical and theological understanding of the

Church as the people of God.”195 This dignity as People of God comes about through

sharing in baptism and consequently in the work of Christ. “From the act of their union

with Christ the head flows the laymen’s right and duty to be apostles,”196 which is indeed

the right and duty of all the faithful, not just of the laity. Thus, taking part in the work of

the Church or having the right to do so is no longer seen as a privilege but rather as a right

flowing from one’s relationship to Christ. The social teachings of the Church’s

magisterium sparked a greater awareness and recognition of rights, not just verbalizing the

192 Canon 1646. Quilibet potest in iudicio agere, nisi a sacris canonibus prohibeatur; reus autem

legitime conventus respondere debet. 193 See CORIDEN, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, 5. 194 See ibid. 195 See ibid. 196 See AA, no. 3, in AAS, 58 (1966), 839-840, FLANNERY1, 768.


rights but also the Church desiring to set an example itself.197 Though the Catholic social

teachings always upheld the rights of the faithful, real consciousness of the Christian

faithful within the Church itself emerged with the Second Vatican Council.198

Following the Council, there were numerous attempts to list what kinds of rights

were proper to all members of the Church. The sixth principle governing the revision of

the Code, De tutela iurium personarum, stated that “it is expedient that the rights of persons

be appropriately defined and safeguarded.”199 Many attempts were made to define what

these rights are so that they could be protected. In presenting these lists of rights, the various

authors kept in mind that they were not dealing with the same kind of situation that they

would be in listing civil rights.200 The Church is different from civil society because it is a

society of belief and love; there is diversity in the Church but not the same diversity as in

a civil society. Still, the freedoms characteristic of civil society also have existential

relevance to freedom within the Church.201

There was a consciousness among authors that, in speaking of rights within the

Church, one is speaking of more than simply natural rights but also of baptized believers

197 See W. KASPER, “The Theological Foundations of Human Rights,” in The Jurist, 50 (1990),

166 (=KASPER, “The Theological Foundations of Human Rights”). 198 See CASTILLO LARA, “Some General Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian

Faithful,” 9. 199 See PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR THE REVISION OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW, Principles Which

Direct the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, in Communicationes, 1 (1969), 82-83. “Et quoniam non

omnes eamdem functionem in Ecclesia habent, neque idem statutum omnibus convenit, merito proponitur ut

in future Codice ob radicalem aequalitatem quae inter omnes christifideles vigere, tum ob humanam

dignitatem tum ob receptum baptisma, statutum iuridicum omnibus commune condatur, antequam iura et

officia recenseantur quae ad diversas ecclesiasticas functiones pertinent.” 200 See J. BEYER, “De iuribus humanis fundamentalibus in Statuto iuridico Christifidelium

assumendis,” in Periodica, 58 (1969), 27-58; see also ID., “De statuto iuridico christifidelium iuxta vota

Synodi Episcoporum in novo Codice Iuris condendo,” in Periodica, 58 (1968), 550-581. 201 See B.F. DEUTSCH., “Towards a Declaration of Christian Freedoms,” in The Jurist, 29 (1969), 5

(=DEUTSCH, “Towards a Declaration of Christian Freedoms”).


who share in the life of Christ.202 There are, then, unique rights of the faithful grounded in

baptism and acknowledged in canon law whether explicitly or implicitly.

1.5.3.1 Attempts to list the rights of the faithful

Anyone attempting to formulate a list of the rights of the faithful had to take into

account not only of natural, human rights but also of ecclesial rights arising in virtue of

one’s baptism. There were a variety of approaches to the question. Some turned to

recognized statements such as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(1948), and they analyzed the Council’s documents to see how these rights are found within

the Church as well. Others used the conciliar statements directly, developing lists of rights

as these were mentioned here and there through the various texts.203 Besides these

approaches, some developed lists of rights depending on their own personal interests or

those of people they represented. “This latter experience is an important reminder that any

listing of rights that has been developed in modern times bears the marks of its historical

setting.”204

In 1969, an ad hoc Committee on Due Process of the Canon Law Society of

America presented a list of rights they considered as common rights and freedoms. The list

is placed in the Preamble of the text, as follows:

The right and freedom to hear the Word of God and to participate in the

sacramental and liturgical life of the Church.

The right and freedom to exercise the apostolate and share in the mission of the

Church.

The right and freedom to speak and be heard and to receive objective information

regarding the pastoral needs and affairs of the Church.

The right to education, to freedom of inquiry and to freedom of expression in the

sacred sciences.

202 See LOMBARDÍA, “The Fundamental Rights of the Faithful,” 43. 203 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 135. 204 See ibid.


The right to free assembly and association in the Church.

And such inviolable and universal rights of the human person as the right to the

protection of one’s reputation, to respect of one’s person, to activity in accord with the

upright norm of one’s conscience, to protection of privacy.205

This is an example of an early attempt to define the rights of people in the Church in order

to set up a means of protecting those rights.206

1.5.3.2 Rights in the Code revision process

It was on 2 November 1965 that Pope Paul VI took the initiative and instructed the

consulters of the Code Commission to draft a schema on the fundamental law outlining

constitutional principles that would provide a common basis for both Codes of the Latin

and the Eastern Churches.207 Two coetus independently took up the task of applying the

principles of revision to the formulation of canons to express these values.208 The coetus

which worked on the laity and associations of the faithful developed a list of rights and

duties common to all the faithful before developing a list applicable specifically to lay

persons. Eventually this work was taken over into the 1977 Schema De Populo Dei, cc. 16-

38.209 How to go about doing this work presented challenges in the process of organization.

205 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Due Process to the Canon Law Society of America, 21

October 1969, Cleveland, Ohio, 1. 206 For other examples of lists of rights that have been proposed, see also A. DEL PORTILLO, Faithful

and Laity in the Church, The Bases of Their Juridical Status, Second English Edition, Montréal, Wilson &

Lafleur, 2014; J. KINNEY, The Juridic Condition of the People of God, Rome, Catholic Book Agency, 1972

(=KINNEY, The Juridic Condition of the People of God); B.F. DEUTSCH, “Towards a Declaration of Christian

Freedoms,” in The Jurist, 29 (1969), 8-9 (=DEUTSCH, “Towards a Declaration of Christian Freedoms”). 207 See AAS, 57 (1965), 985. For the developments of the texts of the LEF, see also D’SOUZA, The

Juridic Condition and Status of Minors according to the Code of Canon Law, 33-35; CORIDEN, “A Challenge:

Make the Rights Real,” 4-6. 208 See Communicationes, 6 (1974), 50-51. It is significant that this coetus undertook such a task,

for many of the rights now stated in the Code for all the Christian faithful are found in the documents of

Vatican II in specific application to lay persons. Two major breakthroughs have occurred. One is the

distinction between Christifideles and laici (i.e., “faithful” includes more than “lay persons”). The second is

a recognition that rights long taken for granted relative to clergy and religious are shared in common with lay

persons and can therefore be considered part of the common juridic condition of all the Christian faithful. 209 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 135.


This coetus adopted a sophisticated organization for listing rights and duties in

the Church and those the Church proclaims for Christians in the world. Inner Church rights

and duties were distributed according to a theological system. Rights and duties of

communion came first, and those related to the three functions of teaching, sanctifying,

and ruling followed. A series of rights relative to one’s person was included as was a

creative approach to the protection of rights that included redress against administrative

excess, a listing of key procedural rights, and provision for legality of penalties. Rights and

duties in the world focused on the promotion of human rights and of justice and peace in

keeping with the Church’s teaching.210

Thomas Green lists five problems in the approach of the commission of the original

schema. First was a tendency on the part of the commission to overemphasize the

obligations and underemphasize the sacramentally grounded rights of believers. “For the

commission, rights are rooted in the duties flowing from one’s state in life; rights are not

so much absolute claims but rather relative claims connected with the fulfillment of one’s

social duties.”211 Those who criticized this perspective saw the rights more basically rooted

in the dignity of the human persons created and redeemed by God. “Rights according to

this latter view are not an absolute claim but are relative to the common good, i.e., the

cluster of conditions required for each person to achieve personal fulfillment in a relatively

thorough and orderly fashion.”212 A second problem in the approach of the schema was the

tendency to condition the formulations of rights so that the limitations appeared to be on

the rights themselves rather than on the exercise of them. A third criticism was not

highlighting the sacramental grounding of the fundamental Christian rights as well as

possible. Fourthly, the original schema tended to view the laity as enjoying the right to

share in the Church’s mission only from a derivative point of view, that is, it was still the

duty of the hierarchy to perform the mission of the Church and the laity simply to cooperate

210 See ibid. 211 See T.J. GREEN, “Persons and Structures in the Church,” in The Jurist, 45 (1985), 65 (=GREEN,

“Persons and Structures in the Church”). 212 See ibid., 65-66.


with the hierarchy. “This issue was discussed by the special coetus on the Lex. It was

proposed that a canon state the right to exercise charisms in a free and orderly fashion with

due regard for the exigencies of charity.”213 The fifth and final criticism is not significantly

different from those listed above. “Some critics judged that the schema inadequately

reflected the communio binding clergy and laity in the Church’s life and mission.”214

As the process of development of the revised Code progressed, many of the

specifications of rights that were in the schema De Populo Dei were dropped in favor of

the format that had been developed by the parallel coetus working on the Lex Ecclesiae

fundamentalis.215 This group was given the task of drawing up a fundamental law of the

Church. The listing of rights was seen to be more properly a part of the fundamental law

or constitution of the Church than a part of the code of law, and thus the listing of rights

and duties was dropped from Book II of the proposed Code by the coetus working on De

Populo Dei.216 The draft of the fundamental law of the Church had eleven canons on the

fundamental rights and obligations of all the faithful (cc. 10-25). These draft canons

express the equality of the faithful; the right to share in the mission of the Church; the rights

of inquiry, expression, and association; the right to participate in the governance of the

Church; and procedural and remedial rights.217 Albert Gauthier describes the efforts of the

coetus working on the Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis as follows.

The commission for Revision’s efforts to formulate a Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis

can be described as an attempt to present the fundamental structures of the Church viewed

as a juridical community—the iusconstitutionale of the entire Catholic Church—in a text

that would contain the higher principles and major rules, both of divine and of ecclesiastical

right, by which the constitutional law of the Church could be defined. This

213 See GREEN, “Persons and Structures in the Church,” 72. 214 See ibid., 72. 215 See KINNEY, “Rights and Duties of the Faithful in the Schema ‘People of God’,” 108. 216 See PROVOST, “Introduction to cc. 208-223,” 136. 217 See Communicationes, 16 (1984), 92-94; See J.A. CORIDEN, “Human Rights in the Church,” in

Concilium, 124 (1979), 72 (=CORIDEN, “Human Rights in the Church”).


iusconstitutionale concerns mainly: 1º the fundamental rights and duties of the faithful and,

2 º the basic norms that regulate the activity of pastors at the service of the mission of the

Church.…218

The coetus working on the Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis was dealing with its own

difficulties in expressing the rights and duties of the laity. There was a certain objection

among a portion of the members with regard to an overly hierarchical treatment of the

Church in which laity were portrayed as passive subjects rather than full and responsible

members. Some feared that the proposed insertion of fundamental rights of the Christian

faithful was dangerous. They argued that Gaudium et spes promotes rights primarily with

regard to civil society, but their inclusion in the Lex could lead to abuse.219 There was also

a concern about a claim of freedom of conscience relating to a doctrinal teaching or if

statements regarding the rights of the laity to preach the gospel may lead to confusion of

the roles of laity and clergy.220

In 1981, the whole Lex project came to an end, without any explanation, after it had

been approved by a specially convened international coetus earlier in the year. The canons

on the rights and duties of the faithful were transferred to a schema for the body of the code

along with some elements from a set of rights which had been developed by the coetus

working on the Schema de Populo Dei.221 Thus, most of the principal norms on

fundamental rights and obligations of the Christian faithful from the LEF became an

integral part of the present Code.222

218 See A. GAUTHIER, “The Progress of the Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis,” in Studia canonica, 12

(1978), 378 (=GAUTHIER, “The Progress of the Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis”). 219 See S. HOLLAND, “Equality, Dignity, and Rights of the Laity,” in The Jurist, 47 (1987), 112

(=HOLLAND, “Equality, Dignity, and Rights of the Laity”). 220 See ibid. 221 See CORIDEN, “A Challenge: Make the Rights Real,” 5. 222 See Communicationes, 12 (1980), 79-91; see also PROVOST, “Ecclesial Rights,” 53. Castillo Lara

is of the opinion that because the LEF was deficient on some doctrinal issues from an ecumenical point of


These developments led to the present listing of “The Obligations and Rights of All

the Christian Faithful” in Title I of Book II, “The People of God.” Various other rights and

obligations are also listed in scattered places throughout the Code, each dealing with

specific situations. The listing of the rights for all the Christian faithful are separate from

the listing of the rights of the laity, with the first canon in the section for the laity alluding

also to the rights common to all the faithful as well as to rights given in other canons.223

1.6 Fundamental Rights of the Faithful in the Revised Code (cc. 208-

223)

The canons of Title I of Book Two of the Code declare and promote the rights of

all the baptized faithful in the Church (cc. 208–223).224 As seen above in the Introduction,

the Code contains three other lists of rights and duties pertaining to specific groups: the

obligations and rights of the lay Christian faithful (cc. 224–231),225 the obligations and

view, Pope John Paul II decided not to promulgate it as a separate book. See CASTILLO LARA, “Some General

Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian Faithful,” 12. 223 See c. 224. 224 Referring to these canons, Pope John Paul II said: “The Church has always affirmed and

promoted the rights of the faithful, and in the new Code, indeed, she has promulgated them as a fundamental

charter (cf.cc. 208-223). She thus offers opportune juridical guarantees for protecting and safeguarding

adequately the desired reciprocity between the rights and duties inscribed in the dignity of the person of the

Christian faithful (christifidelis).” See JOHN PAUL II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, 26 February 1983, in

AAS, 75 (1983), 544-559, English translation in W.H. WOESTMAN (ed.), Papal Allocutions to the Roman

Rota, 1939-1994, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1994, 176-180. For an analysis of the canons in the light of

the Council, see J. HERRANZ, “The Juridical Status of the Laity: The Contribution of the Conciliar Documents

and the 1983 Code of Canon Law,” in Communicationes, 17 (1985), 287-315. For an authoritative history of

Title I, see J.C. CASTILLO LARA, “Some General Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian

Faithful,” in Studia canonica, 20 (1986), 7-32. For a philosophical analysis of this “breakthrough of great

importance,” see J. MCINTYRE, “Lineamenta for a Christian Anthropology: cc. 208-223,” in Periodica, 85

(1996), 249-276. See also L. ÖRSY, From Vision to Legislation: From the Council to a Code of Laws,

Milwaukee, Marquette University Press, 1985, 16, 54. For “an essentially negative response” to this Title,

see J.A. CORIDEN, “What Became of the Bill of Rights?” in CLASP, 52 (1990), 47- 60. For a general analysis

of these canons on the fundamental rights and obligations of the faithful, see J.M. TINOKO, “The Fundamental

Rights and Obligations of the Faithful,” in Philippiniana Sacra, 54 (1983), 392-416. 225Outside the Code, the Church also recognizes distinct rights of families in HOLY SEE, Charter of

Rights of the Family, 22 October 1983, Rome, Polyglot Press, 1983. See D.J. DILLABOUGH, The Vatican

Charter of the Family 1983: A Study of the Charter and the Historical Social Tradition of Family Rights,

Rome, Academia Alfonsiana, 1987.


rights of clerics (cc. 273–289), and the obligations and rights of institutes of consecrated

life226 and their members (cc. 662–672).227 In this section, we shall briefly discuss each of

the rights common to all the Christian faithful enunciated in Book II, Title I of the Code.

For completeness, we shall also include the canons of this Title that only impose an

obligation without any right implied. The focus will not, however, be on distinguishing

explicit and implicit rights, as this was already covered in the methodology section of the

Introduction.

1.6.1 True equality of dignity and action

Canon 208. From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the

Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which

they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each

one’s own condition and function.228

This canon enunciates a general principle and its application to the Church’s

life.229 The canon is foundational in expressing explicitly the radical equality of the

Christian faithful. It views the Church as a communion.230 By reason of baptism, there

226 Religious institutes are governed by general norms on consecrated life (cc. 573-602) and their

particular norms (cc. 607-709). There are also secular institutes (cc. 710-730) and societies of apostolic life

(cc. 731-746), hermits (c. 603), and the order of virgins (c. 604). For commentaries, see E. GAMBARI, Renewal

in Religious Life: General Principles, Constitutions, Formation, Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1967; 57; and J.

BEYER, “Religious Life or Secular Institutes,” in The Way Supplement, 7 (1969), 112-132. See also E.

MCDONOUGH, “Categories of Consecrated Life,” in Review for Religious, 50 (1991), 301, where the author

notes: “From a technical perspective, the canons list only four forms of consecrated life strictly so called and

add the separate category of societies of apostolic life. However, the initial canon describing these societies

compares them immediately to the institutes of consecrated life treated in the previous canons. Thus, for all

practical purposes, there are really five identifiable and juridically specified forms under the umbrella

category of ‘consecrated life’ in the revised Code.” 227 See KASLYN, “The Christian Faithful cc. 204-223,” 254. 228 Cf. CCEO, c. 11; CIC, c. 208. Inter christifideles omnes, ex eorum quidem in Christo

regeneratione, vera viget quoad dignitatem et actionem aequalitas, qua cuncti, secundum propriam cuiusque

condicionem et munus, ad aedificationem Corporis Christi cooperantur. 229 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 208, 258; cf. R.J. BARRET, “The Rights of the Faithful: Some

Signs of Progress,” in The Irish Theological Quarterly, 61 (1995), 250-264; J. GONZÁLEZ, “Rights and

Participation of the Laity in the Life of the Church,” in Boletín Eclesiástico de las Filipinas, 77 (2001), 662-

708; F.G. MORRISEY, “The Rights and Duties of the Faithful according to the Code of Canon Law,” in Studies

in Church Law, 1 (2005), 25-48. 230 See A. MCGRATH, Commentary on c. 208, in CLSGBI Comm, 118, (=MCGRATH, Commentary

on c. 208).


exists a true equality among all Christians. They are reborn in Christ; they share a

common dignity and responsibility as children of God. This is carried out according to

one’s condition and function in one’s life.231 This statement refers to the diversity

concretely existing among the people of God. Differences exist in the means by which

particular individuals participate in the Church’s mission, and thus different levels of

responsibility exist. All Christian faithful share in one baptism, but their participation in

the triple functions (munera) of the Church differs according to the diversity of vocations

and charisms as well as an individual’s specific condition.232 Despite this diversity of

participation, the principle of equality in dignity and action implies that the rights of the

faithful flowing from baptism apply equally to all.

1.6.2 Obligation to maintain communion

Canon 209 §1.The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting,

are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

§2.With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the

universal Church and the particular Church to which they belong

according to the prescripts of the law.233

This canon lays emphasis on maintaining communion by the faithful in one’s

manner and condition. The first part of this canon basically focuses on the obligation of

the faithful to maintain communion with the Church. This obligation to maintain

communion with the Church is considered as the most important duty of the faithful.

This obligation derives from their baptism in the Church (c. 96) and to a lesser extent

also from their confirmation which “binds them more perfectly to the Church”

231 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 208, 140. 232 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 208, 259. 233 Cf. CCEO, c. 12; CIC, c. 209, §1. Christifideles obligatione adstringuntur, sua quoque ipsorum

agendi ratione, ad communionem semper servandam cum Ecclesia.

§2. Magna cum diligentia officia adimpleant, quibus tenentur erga Ecclesiam tum universam, tum

particularem ad quam, secundum iuris praescripta, pertinent.


(c. 879).234 This obligation refers to two dimensions of an individual’s life: the internal,

personal response to the divine invitation to enter into a relationship with God and the

external expression of that personal response within the community of faith.235 In the

Eastern Code, the same obligation is laid out in c. 12.

The second paragraph of c. 209 encourages the faithful to fulfill their duties

towards the universal and particular Church. The exercise of such duties occurs within

the particular Church and parish to which they belong by reason of domicile or quasi-

domicile. This communion requires the active participation of the faithful in all

aspects.236

1.6.3 Obligation to live a holy life

Canon 210. All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy

life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification,

according to their own condition.237

This canon resonates with a fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican

Council’s doctrine on the universal call to holiness. The call to holiness arises from a

personal relationship involving a communion with God. The faithful must strive

constantly to deepen their communion with God and the Church.238 The mention of the

phrase in the canon, “each according to his or her own condition,” should not be

interpreted to mean that there actually exist various degrees of sanctity depending on

234 See D. CENALMOR, “Commentary on c. 209,” in A. MARZOA, J. MIRAS, and R. RODRÍGUEZ-

OCAÑA (eds.), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, prepared under the responsibility of the

Martin De Azpilcueta Institute, Faculty of Canon Law, University of Navarra, E. CAPARROS (gen. ed.),

English edition, vol. II/1, Wilson and Lafleur, Montreal, 2004, 48 (=CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 209). 235 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 209, 259; cf. ID., “The Value underlying the Law: A

Foundational Analysis of Canon 209 §1,” in Studia canonica, 29 (1995), 7-28. 236 See ibid., 261. 237 Cf. CCEO, c. 13; CIC, c. 210. Omnes christifideles, secundum propriam condicionem, ad

sanctam vitam ducendam atque ad Ecclesiae incrementum eiusque iugem sanctificationem promovendam

vires suas conferre debent. 238 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 210, 261; cf. M. CASEY, “The Evolution of New Forms of

Consecrated Life,” in Studia canonica, 36 (2002), 463-486.


diverse conditions of people. Rather, the teaching of the Council means that, even though

many different conditions and classes of persons exist, holiness is one and the same. We

are all called to holiness. This obligation to strive for holiness is, above all, a religious

duty, which is the primary duty of the faithful.239

1.6.4 Right to proclaim the gospel

Canon 211. All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that

the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every

age and in every land.240

This canon is on the obligation and right of each and every Christian faithful to

spread the gospel. This is a universal right and obligation pertaining to all of Christ’s

faithful.241 It is a right and obligation of the divine positive law, based on the command

of Christ to make disciples of all the nations (Mt 28:18-20). This is an authentic right that

does not come from the merely ecclesiastical law. The right to spread the good news is

rooted in one’s divine vocation that comes from one’s baptism and confirmation.242

The Code presents evangelization in two ways–in a broad and narrow sense.

Canons 211 and 781 express the broader understanding in which all Church activity is

missionary. With a different perspective, c. 786 pertains to mission action properly so

called (actio proprie missionalis) as the proclamation of the Christian message in areas

where it is not yet known. All the faithful can have a role in this proclamation. Both

senses of evangelization are intimately related since specific “mission action” reflects the

239 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 210, 60. 240 Cf. CCEO, c. 14; CIC, c. 211. Omnes christifideles officium habent et ius allaborandi ut divinum

salutis nuntium ad universos homines omnium temporum ac totius orbis magis magisque perveniat. 241 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 211, 143; cf. S. RECCHI, “L’impegno a diffondere l’annuncio

della salvezza (canon 211),” in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale, 8 (1995), 419-423. 242 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 211, 61.


Church’s fundamental mission in the world. The important criterion is to maintain

communion with the Church (c. 209) and to foster the common good of all (c. 223).243

1.6.5 Right to express needs, desires and opinions

Canon 212 §1.Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful

are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred

pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith

or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the

Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they

possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the

sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the

Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,

without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward

their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of

persons.244

The first paragraph of this canon establishes the duty of obedience of the faithful

to their sacred pastors as representatives of Christ in two specific areas: in that which

pastors declare either as teachers of the faith or as rulers of the Church.245 This obedience

is requested and given within one’s freedom; it is not simply mechanical or passive but

given out of personal and ecclesial responsibility. If that which is being ordered is

legitimate, then it must be obeyed in a spirit of collaboration. In order to make it easier for

the faithful, the authorities should not place undue burdens on them in their obedience.246

243 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 211, 263. 244 Cf. CCEO, c. 15; CIC, c. 212, §1. Quae sacri Pastores, utpote Christum repraesentantes, tamquam

fidei magistri declarant aut tamquam Ecclesiae rectores statuunt, christifideles, propriae responsabilitatis

conscii, christiana oboedientia prosequi tenentur.

§2.Christifidelibus integrum est, ut necessitates suas, praesertim spirituales, suaque optata Ecclesiae

Pastoribus patefaciant.

§3.Pro scientia, competentia et praestantia quibus pollent, ipsis ius est, immo et aliquando officium,

ut sententiam suam de hisquae ad bonum Ecclesiae pertinent sacris Pastoribus manifestent eamque, salva

fidei morumque integritate ac reverentia erga Pastores, attentisque communi utilitate et personarum dignitate,

ceteris christifidelibus notam faciant. 245 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 212, 264. 246 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 212, 67.


The expression “sacred pastors” (sacri Pastores) refers primarily to the pope and the

bishops who comprise the authentic magisterium and who have the power of governance

to rule the Church. To a lesser extent, it also applies to others who exercise pastoral

authority in the Church such as pastors, vicars, chaplains.247

The second paragraph of c. 212 acknowledges the right of all the faithful to

express their needs and their wishes to the sacred pastors, with special emphasis given to

spiritual needs.248 The expression integrumest appearing at the beginning of the second

paragraph indicates that the obligation of the pastors to attend to the request of the faithful

is truly one of justice. Here we see the right of the faithful to petition. The faithful have

the right not only to express their spiritual needs but also have the right to petition the

ecclesiastical authorities and to require a concrete response to their petition.249 This right

to petition is an individual and collective right of the people, which can be oral or written

in the way they raise their concerns in the Church. This right pertains to all the Christian

faithful, although it may have a greater impact with respect to lay faithful because

oftentimes they remain a voiceless group in the Church.250 The substance of the petition

should be within the competence of the sacred pastors or ecclesiastical authority to

respond and grant within his discretion. Therefore, when properly exercised, this right

247 See J.A. CORIDEN, “Freedom of Expression in the Church in the Light of Canon 212 (CIC),” in

CLSAP, 57 (1995), 153 (=CORIDEN, “Freedom of Expression in the Church”); cf. J.M. WACHS, “Obsequium:

Why and How It Is Still Possible to Demand and to Offer,” in Periodica, 103 (2014), 417-445; ID.,Obsequium

in the Church: Sacred Tradition, Second Vatican Council, 1983 Code and Sacred Liturgy, Gratianus Series,

Wilson & Lafleur, Montreal, 2014; R. TORFS, “L’affaire Gaillot et la liberté d’expression,” in Revue de Droit

Canonique, 45 (1995), 83-89. 248 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 212, 265. 249 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 212, 71. 250 See CORIDEN, “Freedom of Expression in the Church,” 153.


should bring about a definitive response, whether affirmative or negative, and with the

motives stated so that the petitioner has a chance of taking hierarchical recourse.251

The third paragraph of canon 212 explicitly acknowledges the right and obligation

on the part of the Christian faithful to share with the sacred pastors and with other

Christian faithful their opinions on matters concerning the good of the Church.252 This

right and duty certainly pertains to all matters other than Church doctrine, including

unsettled disciplinary issues such as the ordination of married men. On such questions,

the faithful are free to express their opinions in a thoughtful and respectful manner “with

reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to the common advantage and the dignity of

persons.” With respect to matters of doctrine, the canon implies that expressing one’s

opinion may freely be done as long as it is “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and

morals.”

A crucial question arises with respect to the extent that the Christian faithful may

“dissent” from a teaching of the Church.253 For example, the Church’s teaching on

abortion is morally binding on everyone; this is clear from the definitive teaching of St.

John Paul II expressed in Evengelium vitae, so dissent from it is not permissible. But, it

is possible to question whether the faithful may legitimately have differing views from

the Church’s teaching on the use of artificial birth control methods, as this teaching has

not been solemnly defined.254 In every case, however, all the conditions of the canon

251 Cf. cc. 50-51. See A.D. PORTILLO, Faithful and Laity in the Church, Shannon, Ecclesia Press,

1972, 76 (=PORTILLO, Faithful and Laity in the Church). 252 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 212, 266. 253 See CORIDEN, “Freedom of Expression in the Church,” 153. 254 On this issue, Huels states: “Some theologians raise the question of whether it is possible to

dissent from teachings of the ordinary magisterium, since these teachings have not been declared definitively.

In large measure, the answer to this question depends on what is meant by ‘dissent.’ If it implies a public

defiance of the Church’s legitimate authority, such dissent could be contrary to the divine and/ or

ecclesiastical law (cf. cc. 209, 212 § 1, 1371). However, there is no foreseeable canonical or moral objection


come into play. (1) The faithful may express their opinion to the sacred pastors in keeping

with their “knowledge, competence, and prestige;” (2) the issue must in some way “pertain

to the good of the Church;” (3) in stating their views, they must be “attentive to the common

advantage and the dignity of persons;” and (4) they may not act with “prejudice to the

integrity of faith and morals.”

1.6.6 Right to spiritual assistance

Canon 213.The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from

the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the

word of God and the sacraments.255

The right to the word of God and the sacraments is one of the most radical and basic

rights of the faithful. This right yields a corresponding obligation on the sacred pastors to

take care that the Christian faithful receive this assistance.256 This right is further supported

by the obligation placed on sacred ministers not to deny the sacraments to those who seek

them opportunely, are properly disposed, and are not impeded by law (c. 843, §1). They

are also to give proper preparation for the sacraments (c. 843, §2), to preach the word of

God (cc. 756-757), and to call others who can help provide this good for the faithful (cc.

758-759). The duty also falls to pastors to prepare proper liturgical celebrations, preach

good homilies, and offer spiritual help (cf. cc. 386-387).

if an individual Catholic, after making a serious attempt to study a given teaching and to understand the

magisterium’s position, is unable in conscience to give intellectual assent to it. Such a response is more likely

to occur when the reasons given for a particular teaching fail to convince a large number of the faithful.” J.M.

HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church: A Commentary on Book III of the Code of Canon Law,

Ottawa, Saint Paul University Faculty of Canon Law, 2017, 34-35 (=HUELS, The Teaching Office of the

Catholic Church). See also F.A. SULLIVAN, “Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church,

Dublin, Gill and MacMillan, 1983, 166. 255 Cf. CCEO, c. 16; CIC, c. 213. Ius est christifidelibus ut ex spiritualibus Ecclesiae bonis,

praesertim ex verbo Dei et sacramentis, adiumenta a sacris Pastoribus accipiant. 256 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 213, 77; cf. D.L. TOURNEAU, “Le canon 213 sur le droit aux

biens spirituels et ses conséquences sur les droits et les devoirs fondamentaux dans l’Église,” in Studia

canonica, 47 (2013), 407-466; ID., La dimension juridique du sacré, Montreal,Wilson & Lafleur, 2012; B.

DALY, “Refusing Sacraments”: Another Name for Driving People away from the Church,” in Australasian

Catholic Record, 80 (2003), 39-50.


Regarding the right to the sacraments, sacramental access may not be denied to

someone in full communion without a serious cause and due process of law. Even those

who are not in full communion with the Church can in certain situations seek and receive

the sacraments in the Catholic Church (c. 844, §§ 3, 4). Furthermore, Catholics may seek

the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in Churches where they are validly celebrated

provided the conditions of the law are met (c. 844, §2).257

1.6.7 Right to worship God according to one’s rite and spirituality

Canon 214.The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according

to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the

Church and to follow their own form of spiritual life so long as it is

consonant with the doctrine of the Church.258

The canon indicates two rights of the faithful: the right to worship according to a

particular rite and the right to follow a particular spirituality. The canon makes three

distinctions with respect to ritual Churches, liturgical rites, and a variety of spiritualities

in the Church.259 In the understanding of the Latin Church, the word “rite”260 is used in a

variety of contexts: the celebration of a sacrament (e.g., the rite of infant baptism) or of

a sacramental (e.g., the rite of blessing for the site of a new church building) or, more

broadly, the way in which liturgy is celebrated (e.g., the Roman, Tridentine, or

257 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 214, 148. 258 Cf. CCEO, c. 17; CIC, c. 214. Ius est christifidelibus, ut cultum Deo persolvant iuxta praescripta

proprii ritus a legitimis Ecclesiae Pastoribus approbati, utque propriam vitae spiritualis formam sequantur,

doctrinae quidem Ecclesiae consentaneam. 259 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 214,148; cf. J. ABBASS, “Latin Bishops’ Duty of Care towards

Eastern Catholics,” in Studia canonica, 35 (2001), 7-31; P. ERDO, “Questioni interrituali del diritto dei

sacramenti,” in Periodica, 74 (1995), 315-353. 260 The term “rites” mentioned in c. 2, in its general connotation, stands for any religious function,

but in its more restricted sense it means prayers and formulas required to be recited in a liturgical function.

In c. 2 of the 1917 Code, the term “rites” was combined with “ceremonies.” The latter signified external acts

and gestures which accompany the prayers and the public exercise of divine worship. See J.A. ABBOand J.D.

HANNAN, The Sacred Canons: A Concise Presentation of the Norms of the Church, rev. ed., St. Louis, B.

Herder Co., 1957, vol. 1, 6. The new Code does not mention the term “ceremonies”; it could mean that

whatever was signified by it is subsumed under the term “rites.”


Ambrosian rite). According to c. 28, §1 of the Eastern Code, “rite “in the broad sense

encompasses “the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and

circumstances of history of a distinct people.”261

The Code recognizes the right to spirituality because it enhances the holy life of

the faithful according to one’s condition (c. 210). The call to holiness and sanctity is

rooted in one’s baptism.262 A person has the right to live one’s spirituality, but always

keeping one’s practice of spirituality according to the sound teachings and doctrines of

the Church. In other words, this right of one’s spirituality also demands the obligation to

adhere to the teaching of the Church (c. 209, §1).263 However, no Christian is to impose

upon others any specific form of spiritual life or create obstacles to one’s spirituality. The

sacred pastors themselves have the responsibility to respect this right of the faithful and

not to influence or impose their authority on one’s own spirituality.264 One particular

difficulty expressed in this canon is, even though the faithful are granted a right freely to

choose their own form of spiritual life, the legislation lays no responsibility on the part

of the sacred pastors to teach them or guide them to a genuine Catholic spirituality.265

1.6.8 Right to find and direct associations

Canon 215. The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct

associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the

Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common pursuit

of these purposes.266

261 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 214, 269. 262 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 214, 89. 263 See MCGRATH, “The Christian Faithful,” 120. 264 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 214, 91. 265 See V.S. FINN, “Canon 214: The Right of the Christian Faithful to Follow Their Own Form of

Spiritual Life,” in CLSAP, 54 (1992), 98-109, 106 (=FINN, “Canon 214: The Right of the Christian Faithful

to Follow Their Own Form of Spiritual Life”). 266 See CCEO, c. 18; CIC, c. 215. Integrum est christifidelibus, ut libere condant atque moderentur

consociationes ad fines caritatis vel pietatis, aut ad vocationem christianam in mundo fovendam, utque

conventus habeant ad eosdem fines in communi persequendos.


The right to association and the right to hold meetings are part of the rights

recognized by most secular governments in today’s world. In many cases it is granted by

the supreme law of one’s nation, the Constitution. The ecclesiastical legislator has

included these rights among the rights and obligations of the Christian faithful so as to

grant them these rights within the Church, not so much in a generic sense, but in the

context of the ecclesial nature of the Church and as part of the rights of the baptized.267

The law puts forth three purposes for the associations: a charitable purpose, a

pious purpose (understood as religious purpose), and for the purpose of promoting the

Christian vocation in the world. There are distinct canons in the Code which govern

associations (cc. 298-329).

There are few challenges with regard to this canon. There are associations which

do not want recognition from the Church and yet they function within the Church free

from ecclesial authority to achieve their aims, whether or not they recognize that they are

always subject to the vigilance of competent ecclesiastical authority (c. 305). Such

situations with a lack of direction may cause damage. However, there are norms to

suppress an association if it is not in accordance with ecclesiastical doctrine or discipline

or it causes scandal to the faithful (cc. 320 and 326).268

1.6.9 Right to participate in the mission of the Church

Canon 216.Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the

Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even

by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition.

267 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 215, 96; cf. M. CASEY, “Associations of Christ’s Faithful:

Possibilities for the Future,” in Studia canonica,41 (2007), 65-90; M.D. GALINDO, “Asociaciones

internacionales de fieles,” in Ius Canonicum, 50 (2010), 9-29; R. PAGÉ, “Associations of Christ’s Faithful:

Selected Issues,” in The Jurist, 62 (2002), 294-311. 268 See F.G. MORRISEY, “The Rights and Duties of the Faithful according to the Code of Canon

Law,” in Studies in Church Law, 1 (2005), 25-48, 42 (=MORRISEY, “The Rights and Duties of the Faithful

according to the Code of Canon Law”).


Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the

consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.269

This canon is on the right of the Christian faithful to exercise the apostolate. In

virtue of baptism, every Christian faithful participates in the mission of the Church. This

is expressed first and foremost in the apostolic action proper to each person. This activity

is rooted in Christ’s action in the life of the baptized and so may be initiated by each

individual without waiting for further authorization (c. 205).270 Canon 211 affirms that

the faithful have the duty and right to proclaim the gospel. Canon 216 further defines this

duty and right by stating explicitly the right to “promote or sustain apostolic action even

by their own undertakings.”271 This right to promote apostolic activity is closely related

to the right of association (c. 215), though evangelization can be done by an individual.

By this right of apostolic activity, the faithful have the right to undertake new apostolic

initiatives and the right to join those which are already in existence.272

Finally, the use of the name “Catholic” for an apostolic endeavor needs to have

the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority, which could be permission or

approval.273 Here the ecclesiastical authority would examine the initiative and grant the

269 Cf. CCEO, c. 19; CIC, c. 216. Christifideles cuncti, quippe qui Ecclesiae missionem participent,

ius habent ut propriis quoque inceptis, secundum suum quisque statum et condicionem, apostolicam actionem

promoveant vel sustineant; nullum tamen inceptum nomen catholicum sibi vindicet, nisi consensus accesserit

competentis auctoritatis ecclesiasticae. 270 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 216, 150; cf. E.A. RINERE, “Catholic Identity and the Use of

the Name ‘Catholic’,” in The Jurist, 62 (2002), 131-158; M. VISIOLI, “Quando una organizzazione caritativa

può dirsi ‘cattolica’? Considerazioni sul motu proprio Intima Ecclesiae natura,” in Ephemerides Iuris

Canonici, 54 (2014), 311-337; A. ANADARAYAR, “Participation of the Laity in the Governing, Teaching and

Sanctifying Office of the Church,” in Indian Theological Studies, 31 (1994), 218-252. 271 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 216, 271. 272 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 216, 107. 273 A permission (licentia) is a faculty or concession foreseen in law and granted according to the

law (c. 59 §2). Although permissions may sometimes grant favours, the permission to use the word “Catholic”

for an apostolic initiative, strictly speaking, is not a favour but a provision (c. 48).It is an administrative

condition which enables a person to act according to the norms of law and in subordination to duly constituted

authority. It must always be given in advance; an approval could be given before or afterward. Thus, e.g., an


appropriate approval on the subject of associations (cc. 300 and 312), schools (c. 803 §3)

and Catholic universities (c. 808).274 By calling the work “Catholic,” it is no longer a

work of an individual or group of individuals, but it represents the public face of the

Church (although only the public juridical person acts nomine Ecclesiae in the juridical

sense as per c. 313).

1.6.10 Right to Christian education

Canon 217. Since they are called by baptism to lead a life in keeping with

the teaching of the gospel, the Christian faithful have the right to a Christian

education by which they are to be instructed properly to strive for the

maturity of the human person and at the same time to know and live the

mystery of salvation.275

This canon is on the right to a Christian education and the fulfillment of this right

within the Christian community, namely, the right to a Christian education. The two goals

of this canon are: the maturity of the human person and the knowledge and living out of

the mystery of salvation. In order to achieve this goal, one needs a Christian education.276

This requires the teaching of Catholic-Christian doctrine at all levels—catechetical

instruction, preaching, and imparting the truths of the message of the gospel (cf. c. 795).

By this formation, the Christian faithful will have fuller knowledge of divine truths which

will enhance their efforts to lead a holy life (c. 210) and live completely in communion

association that neglects to get advance approval to call itself Catholic could nevertheless be granted such

approval later. 274 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 216, 272. 275 Cf. CCEO, c. 20; CIC, c. 217. Christifideles, quippe qui baptismo ad vitam doctrinae evangelicae

congruentem ducendam vocentur, ius habent ad educationem christianam, qua ad maturitatem humanae

personae prosequendam atque simul ad mysterium salutis cognoscendum et vivendum rite instruantur. 276 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 217, 273; R.J. BARRETT, “The Right to Integral Catechesis as

aFundamental Right of the Christian Faithful,” in Apollinaris, 67(1994), 179-206; ID., “The Rights

toAdequate Catechesis as a Fundamental Right of the Faithful,” in Appollinaris, 70 (1997), 185-223;

J.P.DOSS, Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonical Theological Study,

KristuJyoti,Bangalore, 2007; ID., The Right to Education in Church Law, Chennai, Don Bosco Publications,

2011.


with the Church (c. 209, §1). By this Catholic education, the faithful also may acquire

that fuller knowledge of the sacred sciences which are taught in the universities or in

other ecclesiastical faculties (c. 229, §2).277

The Church lays an obligation on every Catholic parent to educate their children.

For example, c. 226, §2 states that parents have a most grave obligation and possess the

right to educate their children according to the doctrine of the Church. The seriousness

of this obligation is reinforced in c. 1366 which requires a censure or any other just

penalty for parents or those who take the place of parents if they hand over their children

to be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion and education. More specifically,

the arrangements for such education are expressed in cc. 773–780 which concern

catechetical instruction, in cc. 793–821 on Catholic education, and in cc. 807–814 on

Catholic universities and other institutes of higher studies.278

1.6.11 Right to freedom in pursuit of sacred sciences

Canon 218. Those engaged in the sacred disciplines have a just freedom of

inquiry and of expressing their opinion prudently on those matters in which

they possess expertise, while observing the submission due to the

magisterium of the Church.279

This canon is on the just freedom of inquiry and expression of views for those

who are involved in the sacred sciences. The exercise of this freedom demands a

corresponding obligation to maintain due respect for, or submission (obsequium) to, the

magisterium of the Church. The magisterium is to be respected because it serves the

277 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 217, 110. 278 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 217, 273. 279 Cf. CCEO, c. 21; CIC, c. 218. Qui disciplinis sacris incumbunt iusta libertate fruuntur inquirendi

necnon mentem suam prudenter in iis aperiendi, inquibus peritia gaudent, servato debito erga Ecclesiae

magisterium obsequio.


highest revealed truth.280 The canon expresses that all the faithful possess this right,

including those who teach the theological disciplines in an institute of higher learning

(cc. 812, 818), as well as those otherwise engaged in critical, systematic study and

research. Even those who err in their search for truth must be treated respectfully because

of this right, allowing them opportunity to correct their error or clarify their position in

accord with the norm of law.281 The exercise of their right to religious liberty can be

impeded only when it goes against a doctrine proposed by the ordinary or extraordinary

magisterium of the Church.282 Due acknowledgement and respect for the ecclesiastical

magisterium is necessary for the public order of the Church, and ultimately the doctrine

of the authentic magisterium must be upheld. However, there is room for “dissent”

against doctrines on faith or morals that have not been definitively proposed (c. 750),

always bearing in mind the obligation of due respect (obsequium) towards the

magisterium (cc. 752, 753).283

1.6.12 Right to choice of state in life

Canon 219.All the Christian faithful have the right to be free from any kind

of coercion in choosing a state of life.284

The right to be free from coercion is a natural right, but in this canon, it is a

specific right of the Christian faithful to be free from coercion in choosing a state of life.

This right does not imply the unconditional possibility of attaining whatever state in life

280 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 218, 151; cf. J.P. DOSS, “Freedom of Inquiry and Expression

of Christifideles? Some Juridical Considerations Starting from Canon 218,” in Studia canonica, 44 (2010),

53-98. 281 See cc. 221, 749-754; CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Regulations for the

Investigation of Teachings (Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine), 29 June 1997, in AAS, 89 (1997), 830-

835; CLD, vol. 14, 786-792. 282 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 218, 119. 283 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 218, 152. 284 Cf. CCEO, c. 22; CIC, c. 219. Christifideles omnes iure gaudent ut a quacumque coactione sint

immunes in statu vitae eligendo.


one wishes. Rather, it is the right to be free from coercion in selecting a state in life. It is

immunity rather than an entitlement.285 The principle here is that every one of Christ’s

faithful has the positive right not be subjected to any kind of coercion or pressure in

making his or her choice of a state in life. It would also be equally a violation of the right

if one were to be coerced into not choosing a preferred state in life.286

1.6.13 Right to good reputation and privacy

Canon 220. No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation

which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his

or her own privacy.287

This canon addresses two fundamental rights. As noted in the Introduction, the

first right, to a good reputation, is implicit in saying that no one may harm illegitimately

a person’s good reputation. The second right is explicit—the right to protect one’s own

privacy (ius ad propriam intimitatem tuendam). The right to enjoy a good reputation and

the right of the person to protect his or her privacy are natural rights. The rights are based

on natural law and rooted in human dignity.288 As Javier Hervada remarks:

It must be borne in mind that this unquestionable obligation does not proceed

from baptism but from natural law. The obligation and the right are human and, therefore,

of natural order. The canon uses “unlawfully” because it is licit and ethical to bring to

light a person’s defects and offences and thus damage his or her good reputation in this

respect, when the superior good of the individuals, of society, and of the Church is at

stake. Although penal actions may involve publicity, it is lawful to start penal actions

when the right to this action exists and it is exercised correctly. Calumny, denunciation,

insults, slander, and the spreading of rumors are all contrary to this right.289

285 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 219,122. 286 See MCGRATH, “The Christian Faithful,” 124. 287 Cf. CCEO, c. 23; CIC, c. 220. Nemini licet bonam famam, qua quis gaudet, illegitime laedere,

nec ius cuiusque personae ad propriam intimitatem tuendam violare. 288 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 220, 277; cf. M. BRADLEY, “The Evolution of the Right to

Privacy in the 1983 Code: Canon 220,” in Studia canonica, 38 (2004), 301-328; R.J. BARRETT, “The Right

to Privacy,” in Law and Justice, 136 (1998), 39-57; D.L. TOURNEAU, “Le canon 220 et les droits

fondamentaux à la bonne réputation et à l’intimité,” in Ius Ecclesiae, 26 (2014), 127-148; R.E. JENKINS,

“Defamation of Character in Canonical Doctrine and Jurisprudence,” in Studia canonica, 36 (2002), 419-

462. 289 See J. HERVADA, Commentary on c. 219, in E. CAPARROS, H. AUBE, and J. THORN (eds.), The

Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd ed. rev., Montreal, Wilson and Lafleur, 2004, 177 (=HERVADA,

Commentary on c. 219).


The canon says that no one (nemini) may illegitimately harm the good name which

someone else enjoys or injure their right of privacy. Since these are natural rights, nemini

applies to all human beings, baptized or not, but in the context of this Title on the

obligations and rights of the christifideles, it has special application to the baptized,

including the clergy and ecclesiastical authorities. All members of the faithful and indeed

every human being should respect the good reputation and privacy of others. One’s

reputation can be harmed only when there is a legitimate claim in doing so.290

The Code contains a few references to privacy in specific contexts. Seminarians

have the privacy and freedom to choose any confessor (c. 240, §1); a prohibition is placed

on the part of seminary authorities to take the opinion from the confessor and spiritual

director in the seminary while promoting or demoting a seminarian (c. 240, §2). Similar

rules are expressed for promoting the candidates in religious institutes (c. 630, §1); also it

is forbidden for a superior to induce his subjects to make a manifestation of conscience

(c. 630, §5). The Code presents various options to safeguard reputations and to ensure

that penalties are inflicted only as a last resort. In reference to the preliminary investi -

gation process concerning delicts, c. 1717, §2 requires “care” to ensure the protection of

a person’s good name. Canon 1341 suggests diverse “means of pastoral solicitude” be

utilized by an ordinary before beginning a judicial or administrative penal process, which

is always a measure of last resort in dealing with a problematic situation. Canon 1455,

§3 gives judges in specific cases the freedom to bind participants to observe secrecy if the

danger of damaging the reputation of others is present.291

290 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 220, 128. 291 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 220, 278.


1.6.14 Right to protection and vindication of rights

Canon 221 §1. The Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend

the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical

forum according to the norm of law.

§2. If they are summoned to a trial by a competent authority, the Christian

faithful also have the right to be judged according to the prescripts of the law

applied with equity.

§3. The Christian faithful have the right not to be punished with canonical

penalties except according to the norm of law.292

This canon points out three principles necessary to ensure that rights are not only

recognized but also vindicated with the purpose of guaranteeing that rights do not become

meaningless. The three principles are the right to vindicate and defend rights in a compe-

tent Church forum, i.e., the appropriate ecclesiastical tribunal (§1); the right of due process

according to the prescripts of the law “applied with equity” (§2); and the right (rephrased

in positive terms) that sanctions only be imposed only according to the due process of the

law (§3).293

The first paragraph of the canon deals with the right of the faithful to the lawful

defense of their own rights. This includes the right that the case should be brought before

a legitimate ecclesiastical authority and then, if needed, through the corresponding

recourse to the competent forum. Even though the faithful have the right to defend and

vindicate their rights, in the canonical tradition it is preferable to try to settle conflicts

292 Cf. CCEO, c. 24; CIC, c. 221, §1. Christifidelibus competit ut iura, quibus in Ecclesia gaudent,

legitime vindicent atque defendant in foro competenti ecclesiastico ad normam iuris.

§2. Christifidelibus ius quoque est ut, si ad iudicium ab auctoritate competenti vocentur, iudicentur

servatis iuris praescriptis, cum aequitate applicandis.

§3. Christifidelibus ius est, ne poenis canonicis nisi ad normam legis plectantur. 293 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 221, 279; cf. Z. GROCHOLEWSKI, “The Basis of the Right of

Defence,” in Forum, (2006), 339-360; V.R. UY, “The Principle of Equity in the Code of Canon Law,” in

Philippine Canonical Forum, 8 (2006), 65-106; M.P. DUGAN (ed.), The Penal Process and the Protection of

Rights in Canon Law, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2005; W.L. DANIEL, Ministerium Iustitiae. Jurisprudence

of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2011.


peacefully and harmoniously.294 Expressing an important fundamental principle, the Code

urges all the Christian faithful “to strive diligently to avoid litigation” (c. 1446), and this

exhortation is for all. Book VII of the Code specifically deals with all processes pertaining

to the defense and vindication of rights. Canons 1732–1739 provide the procedure for

taking recourse against administrative decrees. Canons 1400, §2 and 149, §2 refer to

administrative tribunals. The possibility also exists of recourse to the second section of

the Apostolic Signatura against a decision by one of the Roman dicasteries. According

to c. 1445, §2, the Signatura “deals with conflicts which have arisen from an act of

ecclesiastical administrative power.”

In its second paragraph, this canon deals with the right to be judged according to

the procedural law. This involves due process with equity. This right is applicable to both

judicial and administrative processes and would include specific rights such as the right

to a good reputation and the right to protect one’s privacy (c. 220).295

The term “equity” refers to softening the rigor of law through charity so that the

ideal of justice may be achieved even when the law lacks it in itself (c. 19). This essential

principle in canonical and Catholic tradition is related to the Aristotelian idea of

epieikeia.296 This canonical equity is rooted in the biblical teaching of the demands of

justice and mercy, which are inseparable. One always needs to keep in mind that every

right is also related to being just; ius alludes to justice.297

294 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 221, 135. 295 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 221, 280. 296 This Greek word is spelled variously by writers in English, mostly epieikeia or epikeia. Epieikeia

is used directly by the subject of the law on his or her own behalf. Epieikeia is a virtue by which the subject

of the law does not observe the law when, in particular circumstances, a greater good is at stake. See J.A.

CORIDEN, “Rules for Interpreters,” in The Art of Interpretation, Washington, D.C., CLSA, 1982, 5-6. See

L.J. RILEY, The History, Nature and Use of Epikia in Moral Theology, Washington, D.C., Catholic University

of America, 1948. 297 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 221, 138.


The third paragraph of the canon deals with the right of the Christian faithful not

to have canonical penalties inflicted upon them except in accordance with the norm of

law. Nevertheless, the Church has the innate right to constrain those who commit offences

with penal sanctions (c. 1311), and these penal sanctions can restrict the free exercise of

rights (c. 96).298 The Church upholds the spirit of the gospel in dealing with particular,

subjective situations by always observing canonical equity and keeping in mind the

salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law (c. 1752).299

However, the Code gives some discretion in the use of coercive power on the part of the

authority.300 The law recognizes the need for sanctions, but it also recognizes that

sanctions should be applied only as a last resort in order to protect the Church and its

mission in the world (c. 1341).301

1.6.15 Obligation to support the Church

Canon 222 §1.The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of

the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for

the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of

ministers.

§2. They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the

precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources.302

The canon does not treat of rights but of two obligations. The first paragraph of the

canon expresses that the Christian faithful have the obligation to help provide for the needs

of the Church in keeping with the basic purposes for which the Church acquires earthly

298 See ibid., 139. 299 See E. LABANDEIRA, Commentary on c. 1752, in CCLA, 1374 (=LABANDEIRA, Commentary on

Canon 1752). 300 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 221, 140. 301 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 221, 282. 302 Cf. CCEO, c. 25; CIC, c. 222, §1. Christifideles obligatione tenentur necessitatibus subveniendi

Ecclesiae, ut eidem praesto sint quae ad cultum divinum, ad opera apostolatus et caritatis atque ad honestam

ministrorum sustentationem necessaria sunt.

§2. Obligatione quoque tenentur iustitiam socialem promovendi necnon, praecepti Domini

memores, ex propriis reditibus pauperibus subveniendi.


goods. These are to provide what is needed for divine worship, to carry on apostolic and

charitable works, and to provide for the honest support of ministers of the Church (c. 1254,

§2). This obligation binds all the Christian faithful irrespective of their juridical status,

whether laity, religious, or clergy. However, the obligation falls particularly on those who

are not directly engaged in the ministry.303

The obligation to support the Church’s mission rests on everyone. Even when the

faithful do not have adequate means of financial support, they still are obliged to show

their support through their various talents and also to pursue holiness of life and participate

in the mission of the Church (cc. 210-211). Book V of the Code on temporal goods gives

sufficient legitimacy for the Church to acquire temporal goods “by every just means” (c.

1259). It speaks of the Church’s right to require the faithful to give financial support (c.

1260), and c. 1261, §2 obliges the bishop to remind the faithful of this obligation and to

urge its observance. There are also rules governing the competence of the diocesan

bishop to impose a moderate tax on both physical and juridic persons (c. 1263).

The second paragraph of the canon deals with a double obligation of the faithful

to promote social justice and to care and provide for the poor from their own resources.

Examples of such are underlined in many places in the Code, such as in the Church’s

mission to proclaim the gospel (c. 211), in the role of associations through their exercise

of charitable works and imbuing the temporal order with a Christian spirit (c. 298), in

c. 287, § 1 which urges clerics “to foster peace and harmony based on justice,” and in

c. 528, §1 which obliges pastors to promote works of social justice. The Code also

303 See PROVOST, Commentary on c. 222, 156; cf. S. LOURDUSAMY, “Canonical Perspectives on

Social Justice and Charity,” in Studia canonica, 49 (2015), 483-500; S.J. JEYASEELAN, “The Poor and the

Priest in the Code of Canon Law - I,” in Vidyajyoti,63 (1999), 925-932; ID., “The Poor and the Priest in the

Code of Canon Law – II,” in Vidyajyoti, 64 (2000), 48-57.


recognizes that other just demands are placed on the faithful. For example, c. 231, §2 states

the right of lay persons who work for the Church to have decent remuneration so that they

are able to provide decently for their own needs and those of their family.304

1.6.16 Obligation to consider the common good and rights of others

Canon 223 §1. In exercising their rights, the Christian faithful, both as

individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the

common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties

toward others.

§2.In view of the common good, ecclesiastical authority can direct the

exercise of rights which are proper to the Christian faithful.305

This last canon of Title I does not declare or establish any right but treats the

exercise of rights. It provides a necessary corrective to an overly individualistic

understanding of obligations and rights, a tendency which is often prevalent in civil society.

The first paragraph expresses three factors to be considered in the exercise of

rights by the faithful: the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and specific

duties owed toward other faithful. The exercise of rights entails a dual responsibility

towards personal and social responsibility. Both individuals and society as a whole must

have regard for the rights of others, their own duties towards others, and the common

good of all.306 The common good of the Church is not restricted only to those factors that

304 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 222, 284. 305 Cf. CCEO, c. 26; CIC, c. 223, §1. In iuribus suis exercendis christifideles tum singuli tum in

consociationibus adunati rationem habere debent boni communis Ecclesiae necnon iurium aliorum atque

suorum erga alios officiorum.

§2. Ecclesiasticae auctoritati competit, intuitu boni communis, exercitium iurium, quae

christifidelibus sunt propria, moderari. 306 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 223, 285; J.B. DÍAZ, “El favor libertatis como clave

hermenéutica del canon 223,” in Ius Canonicum, 53 (2013), 517-546; J.A. CORIDEN, “The Right of Catholics

to Hold Meetings on Church Property: Canonical and Pastoral Issues,” in The Jurist, 62 (2002), 76-91;R.T.

GO, “Administrative Tribunals in the Particular Church,” in Philippine Canonical Forum, 9 (2007), 51-92;

R. MCCORQUODALE, “Contemporary Human Rights and Christianity,” in Law and Justice, 154(2005), 6-26.


affect communion with the Church but also includes, in general, all that transcends the

good of the individual and the interest of the ecclesial community.307

Conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the institution can and

do arise. Canon 221 expresses the necessity of ensuring a proper protection of rights.

That is why the Code lays down a criterion that, prior to the issuance of a decree, the

issuing authority should “hear those whose rights can be injured” (c. 50).308 Finally,

laws which curtail the free exercise of rights are to be interpreted strictly (c. 18), and

the same rule applies to administrative acts (c. 36, §1).

The second paragraph allows Church authorities to direct, or moderate

(moderari), the exercise of the rights of the Christian faithful, without however forgetting

to protect and promote the Church’s mission in view of the common good. The paragraph

does not allow an arbitrary exercise of authority. Rather, its purpose is to ensure that

individuals in exercising their rights are mindful of the Church as a communion in which

all the faithful are equal in dignity and in action (c. 208) and are called to participate in

the proclamation of the gospel (c. 211).

In 2010, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts issued an Explanatory Note

clarifying the application of c. 223, §2. The document says that the moderation of rights

pertains to their regulation by norms of a general character, especially by legislation.309

It does not apply to a restriction on the exercise of the rights of persons in individual

cases. This can only be done according to the proper procedures as set forth in the law.

307 See CENALMOR, Commentary on c. 223, 149. 308 See KASLYN, Commentary on c. 223, 286. 309 PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Explanatory Note concerning the application of

c. 223, §2 CIC, 8 December 2010, in Communicationes, 43 (2010), 280-281.


Conclusion

In the first section of this initial chapter of our study, we examined some

foundational matters pertaining to the fundamental rights of the faithful: the notion of

rights, the meaning of the Christian faithful (christifideles), the differences between

obligations and rights, and the subjects who enjoy rights in the Church. The following three

sections of the chapter subsequently explored the Church’s doctrine on fundamental rights

in modern papal teachings prior to Vatican II, in the documents of the Second Vatican

Council with respect to fundamental ecclesial rights, and in papal teachings after Vatican

II. The final two sections of the chapter switched the focus from the supreme magisterium

(munus docendi) to the supreme legislator (munus regendi), considering fundamental rights

in canon law before the 1983 Code followed by the rights of the faithful as treated in cc.

208-223 of the 1983 Code.

The popes of the modern era prior to Vatican II uniformly grounded their teachings

on rights on the basis of the fundamental values of the dignity of persons and their lawful

freedom in the personal and social arenas. A host of rights were articulated as flowing from

these most basic of rights. Some fundamental rights are related to the right to life: rights to

bodily integrity, food, clothing, shelter, rest, health care and other social benefits. Some of

these may be categorized as economic rights such as the right to property ownership and

the right to the legitimate use one’s material goods. Some are the rights of workers: the

right to work, to adequate remuneration for one’s work, to organize and belong to labor

associations or unions, to have a safe work environment. Other rights pertain to each

individual’s own personal life and choices, such as the right to choose one’s status in life

(marriage and family, ordination, religious profession), the right to respect from others, the


right to one’s good name, the right to develop oneself. Still others are the rights of persons

in society especially with respect to the state: the right to a governmental system that

protects the rights of persons; the right to participate in political processes; the right to

demand observance of international treaties; freedom of communication, residence,

movement, assembly and association; right to an education. Other rights pertain to

religious freedoms: the freedom to follow one’s conscience, to worship God, to practice

one’s religion; and the right to have a religious education. Noteworthy is the fact that none

of the rights articulated in modern papal teaching is unique to the christifidelis. All are

natural rights rooted in the dignity and freedom of the human person; they are not rights

that emanate from baptism or canon law.

The Second Vatican Council reemphasized many of the teachings of the supreme

magisterium on rights from Popes Leo XIII to John XXIII. It addressed the issue of rights

numerous times in various documents and different contexts. Like the popes, the Council

Fathers affirmed the rights of all people (homines), including their civil rights. In addition,

the Council addressed rights particular to the Christian faithful, which is the principal

interest of this study. These ecclesial rights affirmed by the Council may be divided into

three categories: spiritual rights, rights to participate in the Church’s mission, and personal

rights.

There are four spiritual rights which concern the faithful’s right to participate in

the Church’s life. These are the right to pursue holiness of life; the right of the faithful to

receive from their pastors the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God

and the sacraments; the right to one’s own spirituality (which acknowledges the existence


of various spiritualities); and the right to observe one’s own rite (in view of the conciliar

teaching that every lawfully recognized rite is of equal right and dignity).

The Council enunciated three rights of the faithful involving a participation in the

Church’s mission. These are the right (and duty) to announce the good news of salvation

to the whole world, a right applicable to all Christ’s faithful without any discrimination;

the right of preserving, professing and defending the faith; and the right to undertake

apostolic works on one’s own initiative.

Four of the rights of the faithful affirmed by the Council may be categorized as

personal rights. These are the right (and duty) to make known one’s needs to ecclesiastical

authority; the right (and duty) to state freely one’s opinions; the right to associate freely, to

form associations and participate in them to serve the mission of the Church in the world;

and the right to a Christian formation, including formal religious instruction.

The popes after Vatican II continued to teach about the fundamental rights of

persons. The teachings of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis remained

in the tradition of their predecessors, stressing the important natural, human rights

applicable to all people, but their magisterial documents by and large do not address the

unique rights of the christifidelis flowing from baptism and protected in canon law.

Pope Paul VI truly understood the importance of human dignity and rights, as

evidenced by his repeated stress on the equality of all people and their right to participate

in society. Pope John Paul II’s pastoral ministry was centered on the dignity of human

persons and their well-being. He was a passionate apostle of human dignity and rights,

insisting on the Church’s duty to proclaim its message of justice and denounce any

individual, program or system that neglects or exploits human rights and dignity. Pope


Benedict XVI emphasized the significance of the virtue of charity in reference to justice

and rights. As for Pope Francis (2013- ), from the beginning of his pontificate he has

stressed human dignity and human rights, and he has shown particular concern for the poor

and suffering. Francis affirms that the dignity of all people should be respected, regardless

of sexual orientation, and that any form of discrimination or aggression is to be avoided.

The final section of this first chapter treated the fundamental rights and obligations

of the faithful in Book II, Title I of the revised Code (cc. 208-223). Most of these canons

have the documents of Vatican II as their direct or principal source. With respect to the

fundamental rights of the Christian faithful, these canons treat: the radical equality in

dignity and action of the Christian faithful; the right to be involved in the spreading of the

divine message of salvation to all people and every land; the right to engage in apostolic

activity; the rights of association and assembly; the right to the spiritual goods of the

Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments; the right of the faithful to worship

God according to their proper rite and follow their own form of spiritual life; the right to

choose their own state in life; the right to a Christian education; the right to make known

to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual needs, and their desires; the

right to manifest their opinion on matters regarding the good of the Church; the rights to

a good reputation and to privacy; the rights to defend and vindicate their proper rights

before the competent ecclesiastical tribunal and to be judged according to the norm of

law. One of the rights in this Title is directed at the Christian faithful engaged in the study

of the sacred disciplines; they have a just freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing

their opinion on matters in which they are expert.


In the following chapters, we shall see that the canonical rights of the faithful are

not limited to these fundamental rights in Title I of Book II. There are many other rights

given in various canons of every Book of the Code, but most of these are implicit in the

text of the law rather than explicitly stated to be rights. To begin this investigation, our

focus will be on the rights of the faithful in the canons of Books III on the munus Ecclesiae

docendi.

87

CHAPTER TWO

RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE MUNUS DOCENDI

This chapter begins our survey of the rights of all the christifideles, both explicit

and implicit rights, which are found in the Code of Canon Law, in addition to the

fundamental rights of the faithful treated in Chapter One. The concern of this chapter is the

rights of the faithful in the canons of Book III of the Code of Canon Law entitled, De

Ecclesiae munere docendi. The word for the teaching “office” in Latin is munus, which

can be translated variously: office, duty, responsibility, task, function, position, etc. All

these meanings come into play in the canons of Book III. The word docendi means to teach,

to instruct, etc.

Book III is organized into five Titles. Following several foundational canons of

major importance (cc. 747-755), Book III establishes basic canonical discipline for a

variety of juridical institutes that are a part of, or closely related to, the munus docendi: the

ministry of the divine word, especially preaching and catechetical instruction (cc. 756-

780); the mission action of the Church (cc. 781-792); Catholic education, especially

schools, Catholic universities and other institutes of higher studies, and ecclesiastical

universities and faculties (cc. 793-821); instruments of social communication and books in

particular (cc. 822-832); and the profession of faith (c. 833). However, our concern in this

study are only canons dealing with the explicit or implicit rights common to all the faithful.

Various explicit and implicit rights can be identified in several categories: rights

related to the ministry of the divine word, especially the rights to preaching and catechetical

formation; rights with respect to Catholic education; and rights with respect to the

publication of books by Catholic authors on topics of faith and morals. There are also a

Chapter 2: Rights in Book III 88

few rights in Book III that do not fall into these categories. These are in the introductory

canons of Book III and in Title II on the mission action of the Church.

In the introductory canons of Book III, one finds two explicit rights and one implicit

right, each rooted in the divine law. The first of these is the right and duty of the “Church”

to preach the gospel to all nations (c. 747, §1).310 This is a right and duty of the divine

positive law and is binding not just on the institutional Church but all baptized Christians

(cf. c. 211). The second is a right of the divine natural law belonging to all persons

(homines), baptized and unbaptized. This is the obligation and explicit right of all people

to follow their own consciences in the discernment of truth about God and religion (c. 748,

§1).311 In its Declaration on Religious Liberty, the Second Vatican Council taught that God

has made known to man the way in which He is to be worshiped, thus saved by Christ, and

these teachings subsist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Religious freedom is

necessary to worship God, and this entails immunity from coercion in civil society.312 The

human person has a right to religious freedom, and no one is to be forced to act in a manner

310 Cf. CCEO, c. 595, §1; CIC, c. 747, §1. Ecclesiae, cui Christus Dominus fidei depositum

concredidit ut ipsa, Spiritu Sancto assistente, veritatem revelatam sancte custodiret, intimius perscrutaretur,

fideliter annuntiaret atque exponeret, officium est et ius nativum, etiam mediis communicationis socialis sibi

propriis adhibitis, a qualibet humana potestate independens, omnibus gentibus Evangelium praedicandi.

Cf. J. ARRIETA, “The Active Subject of the Church’s Teaching Office (Canons 747-748),” in Studia

canonica, 23 (1989), 243-256; J. BOYLE, Church Teaching Authority: Historical andTheological

Studies,University of Notre Dame Press, 1995;ID., “Church Teaching Authority in the 1983 Code,” in The

Jurist, 45 (1985), 136-170; R. ENO, Teaching Authority in the EarlyChurch,Wilmington, Glazier, 1984; L.Z.

LEGASPI, “The Teaching Office of the Church,” in Philippiniana sacra, 18 (1983), 417-446. 311 Cf. CIC, c. 748, §1. Omnes homines veritatem in iis, quae Deum eiusque Ecclesiam respiciunt,

quaerere tenentur eamque cognitam amplectendi ac servandi obligatione vi legis divinae adstringuntur et iure

gaudent.

Cf. L. BLYSKAL, “Obsequium: A Case Study,” in The Jurist, 48 (1988), 559-589; J. BURKHARD,

“Sensus fidei: Meaning, Role, and Future of a Teaching of Vatican II,” in Louvain Studies, 17 (1992), 18-

34; T.J. GREEN, “The Teaching Function of the Church: A Comparison of Selected Canons in the Latin

and Eastern Codes,” in The Jurist, 55 (1995), 93-140. 312 See DH, no. 1, in AAS, 58 (1966), 929-930, Flannery1, 799-800. On the importance of DH for

Catholic teaching on religious freedom, see John T. PAWLIKOWSKI, “Catholicism and Human Rights in Light

of the Shoah,” in C. RITTNER (ed.), Learn, Teach, Prevent: Holocaust Education in the 21st Century,

Greensburg, PA, National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education, Seton Hill University, 2010,72-73.


contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly. This right has a foundation in

the very dignity of the human person.313 Following from this is the implicit right not to be

coerced to embrace the Catholic faith against one’s own conscience (c. 748, §2).314 These

latter two rights, since they are not specific rights of christifideles but rights of all people,

are not directly pertinent to this thesis.

In Title II of Book III, one finds an implicit right related to the divine law duty and

right of the faithful to preach the gospel to all peoples. This is the “fundamental duty” of

the faithful to “assume their own role in the mission work” of the Church (c. 781).315 This

duty likewise implies a right: that the faithful have the right to participate in the Church’s

mission effort. Thus, ecclesiastical authorities must have an annual collection for the

missions (cf. c. 791, 4º) to enable the faithful minimally to exercise this right by

contributing financially to the Church’s missions.

Canon 781 is the only canon of Title II of Book III (On the Mission Action of the

Church) that has an implicit right pertaining to all the faithful. There is none in the final

Title V (On the Profession of Faith). Implicit rights and some explicit rights are, however,

found in Titles I, III, and IV—which treat the ministry of the divine word, Catholic

education, and the means of social communication.

313 See DH, no. 2, in AAS, 58 (1966), 930-931, Flannery1, 800-801. 314 Cf. CCEO, c. 586; CIC, c. 748, §2. Homines ad amplectendam fidem catholicam contra ipsorum

conscientiam per coactionem adducere nemini umquam fas est. 315 Cf. CCEO, c. 584, §1; CIC, c. 781. Cum tota Ecclesia natura sua sit missionaria et opus

evangelizationis habendum sit fundamentale officium populi Dei, christifideles omnes, propriae

responsabilitatis conscii, partem suam in opere missionali assumant.

Cf. A. REUTER, “The Missionary Activity of the Church (Canons 781-792),” in Studia canonica

23, (1989), 387-407; F.J. URRUTIA, De Ecclesiae munere docendi, Rome, Universitas Gregoriana, 1983.


2.1 Rights to the Ministry of the Divine Word

“The Ministry of the Divine Word” is the heading of Title I of Book III of the Code

(cc. 756-780). Canon 761 speaks directly to the various means that are to be employed in

proclaiming Christian teaching.316 The canon urges that all available means are to be used

in proclaiming the message of Christ. Preaching and catechetical formation are primary;

they always hold the first place.317 This ministry broadly consists of all the Church’s means

of teaching and evangelizing. In the structure of Book III of the Code, however, it mainly

refers to “the Preaching of the Word of God” and “Catechetical Formation,” which

comprise the two chapters of Title I. Subsequent canons of Book III—on mission action,

Catholic education, and the means of social communication—are also part of this ministry,

but they are treated in separate titles under their own headings.

2.1.1 The right to receive preaching from ordained ministers

Preaching is the proclamation of the good news of salvation. The purpose of

preaching is to arouse a faith response and conversion among the faithful. The primary

concern of the Church towards the word of God is that it be preached effectively.318 There

is one canon that deals directly with an explicit right to preach. Bishops have the right319

316 Cf. CIC, c. 761. Varia media ad doctrinam christianam annuntiandam adhibeantur quae praesto

sunt, imprimis praedicatio atque catechetica institutio, quae quidem semper principem locum tenent, sed et

propositio doctrinae in scholis, in academiis, conferentiis et coadunationibus omnis generis, necnon eiusdem

diffusio per declarationes publicas a legitima auctoritate occasione quorundam eventuum factas prelo aliisque

instrumentis communicationis socialis. 317

In Evangelii gaudium, the apostolic exhortation issued in 2013 after the synod on the new

evangelization, Pope Francis dedicates the third chapter to the proclamation of the Gospel. Above all, he calls

for preachers to take the task seriously by devoting significant time for the duty of preaching.See POPE

FRANCIS, Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World Evangelii gaudium,

(=EG) in AAS, 105 (2013), 1019–1137, English translation FRANCIS, The Joy of the Gospel Evangelii

gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation, Washington, DC, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2013. 318 See J. A. CORIDEN, Commentary on cc. 762-772, in CLSA Comm2, 924. 319 In the 1917 Code, all bishops had the “privilege” of preaching everywhere (c. 349, §1, 1°; cf.

c. 239, §§1, 3). Under the law of the 1983 Code, a privilege is only accorded by a singular administrative act

(c. 76), not by law. What formerly were called privileges of the law are now rights granted by law.


to preach everywhere by the law itself in accord with c. 763.320 This right of c. 763 does

not depend just on having an office such as diocesan bishop or auxiliary bishop. The right

is obtained ipso iure at the moment of episcopal ordination. Presbyters who have offices

which are equivalent in law to the diocesan bishop do not have this right. The right is the

result of the fact that “ordination as a bishop itself entails a special relationship with the

word and the bishop’s responsibilities for the entire Church.”321

In the remainder of this section we will be dealing with seven canons with implicit

rights to preaching. The legislator implicitly acknowledges in these canons that the faithful

have the right to hear homilies and other forms of preaching from their ordained ministers.

There is also one explicit right in c. 762 using the word fas as a synonym for ius.

Right to the ministry of the word

Canon 757. It is proper for presbyters, who are co-workers of the bishops,

to proclaim the gospel of God; this duty binds especially pastors and others

to whom the care of souls is entrusted with respect to the people committed

to them. It is also for deacons to serve the people of God in the ministry of

the word in communion with the bishop and his presbyterium.322

The canon strongly upholds the responsibility of presbyters and deacons “to

proclaim the gospel of God” and “to serve the people of God in the ministry of the word.”

This duty is particularly binding on priests and deacons who serve in pastoral ministry for

320 Cf. CCEO, c. 610 §1; CIC, c. 763. Episcopis ius est ubique, non exclusis ecclesiis et oratoriis

institutorum religiosorum iuris pontificii, Dei verbum praedicare, nisi Episcopus loci in casibus particularibus

expresse renuerit. 321 See J.A. FUENTES, Commentary on c. 763, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 80. For his part, the

diocesan bishop has the obligation to preach frequently in person (c. 386, §1), which implies a right of the

faithful to have such preaching by their bishop. Cf. J.A. CORIDEN, “The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan

Bishop and Its Collaborative Exercise,” in The Jurist, 68 (2008), 382-407; T.J. GREEN, “Rights and Duties

of Diocesan Bishops,” in CLSAP, 45 (1983), 18-36; F.G. THOMAS, “The Bishop in His Teaching Office and

Those Who Assist Him,” in Studia canonica, 21 (1987), 229-238. 322 Cf. CIC, c. 757. Presbyterorum, qui quidem Episcoporum cooperatores sunt, proprium est

Evangelium Dei annuntiare; praesertim hoc officio tenentur, quoad populum sibi commissum, parochi aliique

quibus cura animarum concreditur; diaconorum etiam est in ministerio verbi populo Dei, in communione

cum Episcopo eiusque presbyterio, inservire.


a community of the faithful entrusted to them. In all three grades of holy orders, clerics

have this basic duty regarding the proclamation of the word. Therefore, it is “proper”

(proprium) for bishops, priests and deacons to announce the gospel of God and serve the

people in the ministry of the word.323 This obligation on the part of the pastors and deacons

implicitly grants the faithful a right to hear the word of God from those entrusted with the

cura animarum.324

Right to the preaching by the ordained

Canon 762. Sacred ministers, among whose principal duties is the

proclamation of the gospel of God to all, are to hold the function of

preaching in esteem since the people of God are first brought together by

the word of the living God, which it is certainly right to require from the

mouth of priests.325

This canon precisely declares the right of the faithful to receive the word of God

and the duty and obligation on the part of the pastors to preach the gospel to everyone.326

The canon says that the faithful utterly have the right (omnino fas est) to require preaching

from the mouth of sacerdotes, that is, from bishops and presbyters. The Latin word fas may

be taken as a synonym for ius in this and many other instances in canon law, so this is an

explicit right. Deacons are not included, but it does not seem correct to conclude that the

faithful have no such right to require preaching from deacons who have the faculty to

preach and a pastoral charge that includes the duty to preach.327 The right to have preaching

323 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 757, in CLSA Comm2, 921; J.M. HUELS, “The Ministry of the

Divine Word (Canons 756-761),” in Studia canonica, 23 (1989), 325-344; J.H. PROVOST, “Brought Together

by the Word of the Living God (cc. 762-772),” in Studia canonica, 23 (1989), 345-371. 324 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 757, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 62. 325 Cf. CIC, c. 762. Cum Dei populus primum coadunetur verbo Dei vivi, quod ex ore sacerdotum

omnino fas est recipere, munus praedicationis magni habeant sacri ministri, inter quorum praecipua officia

sit Evangelium Dei omnibus annuntiare. 326 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 762, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 77; see also C. SOLER, “El

derecho fundamental a la palabra y los contenidos de la predicación,” in Fidelium Iura, 2 (1992), 305-331. 327 This clause of the canon inexplicably overlooks deacons, who are ministri sacri and who have

the faculty to preach by law in accord with c. 764. This omission is probably due to the canon’s reliance on


from deacons is implicit in the first part of the canon referring to “sacred ministers,” which

includes deacons, “among whose principal duty is the proclamation of the gospel of God

to all.”

Right to have preaching by presbyters and deacons

Canon 764. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 765, presbyters and

deacons possess the faculty of preaching everywhere; this faculty is to be

exercised with at least the presumed consent of the rector of the church,

unless the competent ordinary has restricted or taken away the faculty or

particular law requires express permission.328

According to this c. 764, presbyters and deacons have the faculty to preach by their

very ordination. The law itself grants to the ordained, at the moment of their ordination to

the diaconate, the faculty to preach everywhere, “to be exercised with at least the presumed

consent of the rector of the Church, unless the competent ordinary has restricted or taken

away the faculty or particular law requires express permission.” A grave cause would be

necessary to remove a faculty that the law itself has provided for the benefit of the

faithful.329 The faculty by law for presbyters and deacons to preach everywhere coincides

with their duty to preach and thereby facilitates the right of the faithful to the preaching of

their ordained ministers.

Right to the homily

Canon 767 §2. A homily must be given at all Masses on Sundays and holy

days of obligation which are celebrated with a congregation, and it cannot

be omitted except for a grave cause.

conciliar sources which deal with preaching the Gospel by bishops (LG 25) and by presbyters (PO 4); there

was no comparable treatment at Vatican II of preaching by deacons. Rather than sacerdotes, the legislator

should have said ministri sacri, which would also be consistent with the main clause of the canon. 328 Cf. CCEO, c. 610, §2-§3; CIC, c. 764. Salvo praescripto can. 765, facultate ubique praedicandi,

de consensu saltem praesumpto rectoris ecclesiae exercendae, gaudent presbyteri et diaconi, nisi ab Ordinario

competenti eadem facultas restricta fuerit aut sublata, aut lege particulari licentia expressa requiratur. 329 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 764, in CLSA Comm2, 926; see also D. SALACHAS, “Problemi

interrituali nei due Codici orientale e latino,” in Apollinaris, 67 (1994), 660-661; ID., Il magistero e

l’evangelizzazione dei popoli nei Codici latino e oriental: Studio teologico-giurdico comparativo, Bologna,

Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 2001.


§4. It is for the pastor or rector of a church to take care that these prescripts

are observed conscientiously.330

The second paragraph of this canon imposes the canonical obligation to preach the

homily, which must be given (homilia habenda est) at all Masses on Sundays and holy

days of obligation that are celebrated with a gathering of people. It may only be omitted

for a grave cause (nisigravi de causa). Since this is a law containing an exception, the

exception must be strictly interpreted (c. 18). Strict interpretation in this instance means

that the cause for omitting the homily must be truly grave and not be merely a just cause.

Given the gravity of this obligation; the faithful implicitly have an equally important right

to have the homily preached to them at Masses on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

The fourth paragraph determines the competence and duty of those who, besides

the Holy See and diocesan bishop, are responsible for enforcing the above norms on the

homily, that is, the norms of paragraphs 1-3 of c. 767. It is the responsibility of the pastor

or the rector of a church to ensure that these norms are faithfully observed. The same

competency and duty may be attributed to the religious superior, chaplain, or other priest

who has charge of a church (cf. c. 19).331 Since these priests have the duty to ensure that a

homily is preached at all Masses on Sundays and holy days, it follows that the faithful who

attend their churches have the right to such preaching.

330 Cf. CCEO, c. 614, §2; §4 CIC, c. 767, §2. In omnibus Missis diebus dominicis et festis de

praecepto, quae concursu populi celebrantur, homilia habenda est nec omitti potest nisi gravi de causa.

§4. Parochi aut ecclesiae rectoris est curare ut haec praescripta religiose serventur. 331 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 767, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 93; see also L.ROBITAILLE,

“An Examination ofVarious Forms of Preaching: Toward an Understanding of the Homily and Canons 766-

767,” in CLSAP, 58 (1996), 308-325; J. FOX, “The Homily and the Authentic Interpretation of Canon 767,

§1,” in Apollinaris, 62 (1989), 123-169; J.C. ERRÁZURIZ M., Il “munus docendi”: diritti e doveri dei fedeli,

Ateneo Romano della Santa Croce Monografie Giuridiche 4, Milan, Dott. A. Giuffré Editore, 1991; L.

WRENN, Authentic Interpretations on the 1983 Code, Washington, DC, Canon Law Society of America,

1993.


Right to preaching based on Church teachings

Canon 768 §1. Those who proclaim the divine word are to propose first of

all to the Christian faithful those things which one must believe and do for

the glory of God and the salvation of humanity.

§2. They are also to impart to the faithful the doctrine which the

magisterium of the Church sets forth concerning the dignity and freedom of

the human person, the unity and stability of the family and its duties, the

obligations which people have from being joined together in society, and

the ordering of temporal affairs according to the plan established by God.332

This canon is concerned with the content of preaching. The canon demonstrates the

practical meaning of the ministry of the word. Both paragraphs of the canon stress that

preaching should center on the basic and primary aspects of our faith: that which we must

do and believe for the glory of God, that is, the necessary relationship of the word with the

morals and teachings of the Church.333 Since those who preach are obliged to include these

matters in their preaching, it follows that the faithful have an implicit right to have homilies

and other forms of preaching that incorporate these values.

Right to meaningful preaching

Canon 769. Christian doctrine is to be set forth in a way accommodated to

the condition of the listeners and in a manner adapted to the needs of the

times.334

Canon 769 is an exhortation on the manner of preaching. The Christian teaching

that is the content of preaching must be adapted to the listeners, according to their condition

and times. The canon grants the faithful an implicit right to have homilies and other forms

332 Cf. CCEO, c. 616; CIC, c. 768 §1. Divini verbi praecones christifidelibus imprimis proponant,

quae ad Dei gloriam hominumque salutem credere et facere oportet.

§2. Impertiant quoque fidelibus doctrinam, quam Ecclesiae magisterium proponit de personae

humanae dignitate et libertate, de familiae unitate et stabilitate eiusque muniis, de obligationibus quae ad

homines in societate coniunctos pertinent, necnon de rebus temporalibus iuxta ordinem a Deo statutum

componendis. 333 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 763, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 97. 334 Cf. CCEO, c. 626; CIC, c. 769. Doctrina christiana proponatur modo auditorum condicioni

accomodato atque ratione temporum necessitatibus aptata.


of preaching be made meaningful for them in keeping with their own condition and life

circumstances. In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium, Pope Francis

calls on preachers to know the heart of their community (EG, no. 137).335 He tells them to

preach homilies that are neither entertainment nor a lecture (EG, no. 138),336 to prefer

images to the use of examples (EG, no. 157),337 to give full attention to the biblical texts

(EG, nos. 146 and 152),338 and to relate the texts to the lived experienced of the listeners

(EG, no. 154).339 He also calls on preachers to develop good delivery skills which, he says,

is “a profoundly spiritual concern” (EG, no. 156).340

Right in diocesan law to spiritual exercises and sacred missions

Canon 770. At certain times according to the prescripts of the diocesan

bishop, pastors are to arrange for those types of preaching which are called

spiritual exercises and sacred missions or for other forms of preaching

adapted to needs.341

According to c. 770, the faithful may also have an implicit right, depending on

particular law, to have preaching in the form of spiritual exercises or sacred missions. The

canon is an exhortation, leaving it to diocesan law (iuxta Episcopi diocesani praescripta)

to regulate this matter. If the bishop decrees that parishes are to offer either or both of these

forms of preaching, then the faithful have the implicit right to it in accord with the terms

of the diocesan law.

335 See EG, no. 137, in AAS, 105 (2013), 1077, The Joy of the Gospel, 68-69. 336 See EG, no. 138, in AAS, 105 (2013), 1077, The Joy of the Gospel, 69. 337 See EG, no. 157, in AAS, 105 (2013), 1086, The Joy of the Gospel, 79-80. 338 See EG, no. 146; 152, in AAS, 105 (2013), 1080-1080; 1083-1084, The Joy of the Gospel, 73;

77. 339 See EG, no. 154, in AAS, 105 (2013), 1084-1085, The Joy of the Gospel, 78. 340 See EG, no. 156, in AAS, 105 (2013), 1085-1086, The Joy of the Gospel, 79. 341 Cf. CCEO, c. 615; CIC, c. 770. Parochi certis temporibus, iuxta Episcopi dioecesani praescripta,

illas ordinent praedicationes, quas exercitia spiritualia et sacras missiones vocant, vel alias formas

necessitatibus aptatas.

Cf. J. WALLACE, “Reconsidering the Parish Mission,” in Worship, 67 (1993), 340-351.


2.1.2 The right to catechetical formation

Catechetics, or catechetical formation (catechetica institutio), is an important

aspect in the formation in faith of the Christian faithful. It is a principal form of the ministry

of the divine word along with preaching. This formation includes both teaching of Christian

doctrine in a systematic way and the experience of Christian living.342 Here we will

consider those canons on catechetical formation that imply a right of the faithful to this

formation or some aspect of it.343

The Church has issued several major documents since the Second Vatican Council

that have shaped and promoted catechetical formation, among these the General

Catechetical Directory (1971),344 which was revised as the General Directory for

Catechesis (1997),345 and the praenotanda of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

(RCIA),346 which is a major source of universal law for the Latin Church. Another

important source, magisterial rather than juridical, is the Catechism of the Catholic

Church,347 which is complemented by catechisms prepared under the auspices of the

conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops. Also noteworthy is the Apostolic Letter of

Pope John Paul II on catechesis, Catechesi tradendae (CT).348

342 See CORIDEN, Commentary on cc. 773-780, in CLSA Comm2, 933. 343 See R. BARRETT, “The Rights to Adequate Catechesis as a Fundamental Right of the Faithful,”

in Apollinaris, 70 (1997), 185-223, 200 (=BARRETT, “The Rights to Adequate Catechesis as a Fundamental

Right of the Faithful”). 344 SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, Directorium catechisticum generale Ad normam

decreti, 11 April 1971, in AAS, 64 (1972), 97-176; General Catechetical Directory, Washington, USCC,

1971. 345 CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, Directorium generale pro catechesi, 15 August 1997, Libreria

Editrice Vaticana, 1997; General Directory for Catechesis, Washington, USCC, 1998. 346 See Ordo Initiationis christianae adultorum, editio typica, 6 January 1972, Typis Polyglottis

Vaticanis, 1972 [OICA]; adapted English version Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, Washington,

International Committee on English in the Liturgy (=ICEL), 1985. 347 See Catechismus Ecclesiae catholicae, editio typica, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. 348 See JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter Catechesi tradendae, 16 October 1979, in AAS, 71 (1979),

1277-1340, FLANNERY2, 762-814 (=CT).


Right to catechetical formation

Canon 773. It is a proper and grave duty especially of pastors of souls to

take care of the catechesis of the Christian people so that the living faith of

the faithful becomes manifest and active through doctrinal instruction and

the experience of Christian life.349

Canon 773 speaks of the aim of catechetical formation: “that the living faith of the

faithful becomes manifest and active through doctrinal instruction and the experience of

Christian life.”350 The canon makes clear that especially the pastors of souls (pastores

animarum) have a proper and grave duty to provide catechetical formation for their

faithful.351 The pastors have this primary duty to supervise the catechetical endeavour.

They have a duty exiustitia to see that catechesis is offered to the faithful entrusted to their

care.352 Pastors of souls are bishops, pastors of parishes, vicars, chaplains, and others to

whom a community of the faithful is entrusted.353 Implied in this duty of the pastors is the

right of the faithful to catechetical formation.

Right to catechism and other instruments of catechesis

Canon 775 §1. Having observed the prescripts issued by the Apostolic See,

it is for the diocesan bishop to issue norms for catechetics, to make

provision that suitable instruments of catechesis are available, even by

preparing a catechism if it seems opportune, and to foster and coordinate

catechetical endeavors.

349 Cf. CCEO, c. 617; CIC, c. 773. Proprium et grave officium pastorum praesertim animarum est

catechesim populi christiani curare, ut fidelium fides, per doctrinae institutionem et vitae christianae

experientiam, viva fiat explicita atque operosa. 350 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 773, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 108; see also M.T.

HAGARTY, “The Code, Catechesis, and the Concept ‘Experience’: A Commentary on Canon 773,” in The

Jurist, 61 (2001), 239-256; R.J. BARRETT, “The Normative Status of the Catechism,” in Periodica, 85 (1996),

9-34; E.C. EUSEBIO, Jr., “Integrated Catechesis: The Redaction History of Canons 773 and 779 of the 1983

Code of Canon Law,” in Philippiniana Sacra, 143 (2013), 53-76. 351 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 773, in CLSA Comm1, 555. 352 See M. CONTE A CORONATA, Institutiones iuris canonici, vol. 2, Turin, 1931, 253 (=CONTE A

CORONATA, Institutiones iuris canonici). See also FUENTES, Commentary on c. 773, in Exegetical Comm,

vol. 3/1, 110. 353 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 773, in CLSA Comm1, 555.


§2. If it seems useful, it is for the conference of bishops to take care that

catechisms are issued for its territory, with the previous approval of the

Apostolic See.354

This canon deals with the responsibilities of the Apostolic See,355 diocesan bishops

and bishops’ conference for the ministry of catechesis and preparing catechisms. For the

purpose of this thesis, the relevant part of the canon is that which says the diocesan bishop

is to make provision that suitable instruments of catechesis are available. Since the bishop

has this obligation, it follows that the faithful have the right to suitable catechetical

materials. One sees this implicit obligation also in the following canon.

Rights of parishioners to catechesis

Canon 776. By virtue of his function, a pastor is bound to take care of the

catechetical formation of adults, youth, and children, to which purpose he

is to use the help of the clerics attached to the parish, of members of

institutes of consecrated life and of societies of apostolic life, taking into

account the character of each institute, and of lay members of the Christian

faithful, especially of catechists. None of these are to refuse to offer their

help willingly unless they are legitimately impeded. The pastor is to

promote and foster the function of parents in the family catechesis

mentioned in can. 774, §2.356

354 Cf. CCEO, c. 622, §3; 622, §2; CIC, c. 775, §1. Servatis praescriptis ab Apostolica Sede latis,

Episcopi dioecesani est normas de re catechetica edicere itemque prospicere ut apta catechesis instrumenta

praesto sint, catechismum etiam parando, si opportunum id videatur, necnon incepta catechetica fovere atque

coordinare.

§2. Episcoporum conferentiae est, si utile videatur, curare ut catechismi pro suo territorio, praevia Sedis

Apostolicae approbatione, edantur. 355 Regarding the responsibilities of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, cf. COUNCIL OF TRENT,

Sess. 24, de ref., Ch. 7, Sess. 25, de indice et catechismo, MANSI, Sacroroum conciliorum nova et amplissima

collectio, v. 33, Graz, 1961, cols. 160 and 194. See also FUENTES, Commentary on c. 775, in Exegetical

Comm, vol. 3/1, 117; M. SIMON, “Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Une élaboration de douze années,” in Revue

Théologique de Louvain, 33 (2002), 211-238; J.PASSICOS, “Le statut des instruments de catechèse dans le

Code, in Année Canonique, 31 (1988), 147-156; and J. TOBIN, “The Diocesan Bishop as Catechist,” in

Studia canonica, 18 (1984), 365-414. 356 Cf. CCEO, c. 624; CIC, c. 776. Parochus, vi sui muneris, catecheticam efformationem adultorum,

iuvenum et puerorum curare tenetur, quem in finem sociam sibi operam adhibeat clericorum paroeciae

addictorum, sodalium institutorum vitae consecratae necnon societatum vitae apostolicae, habita ratione

indolis uniuscuiusque instituti, necnon christifidelium laicorum, praesertim catechistarum; hi omnes, nisi

legitime impediti, operam suam libenter praestare ne renuant. Munus parentum, in catechesi familiari, de quo

in can. 774, § 2, promoveat et foveat.


This canon specifies one of the most important duties of the pastor (parochus),

which is to see to the catechetical formation of the flock in his parish (cf. c. 528, §1).357

There is a moral and legal obligation on the pastor, in virtue of his office (munus), to offer

parish catechesis.358 The pastor need not be directly involved with the catechesis; this

responsibility can be shared with others who are willing to assist and collaborate with him.

Three categories of people are mentioned whose assistance can be sought by the pastor.

These are the clerics attached to the parish, both presbyters and deacons; men and women

religious and members of secular institutes and societies of apostolic life in accord with the

character of each institute or society; and finally lay persons, especially trained catechists.

The law says that all of these should not refuse to offer their help willingly unless they are

legitimately impeded (omnes, nisi legitime impediti, operam suam libenter praestare ne

renuant). From the strong obligations mentioned in this canon, there clearly is implied the

right of all parishioners to have catechetical formation in their parish, be they adults, youth,

or children.

Right to different forms of catechesis

Canon 777. Attentive to the norms established by the diocesan bishop, a

pastor is to take care in a special way:

1° that suitable catechesis is imparted for the celebration of the sacraments;

2° that through catechetical instruction imparted for an appropriate period

of time children are prepared properly for the first reception of the

sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist and for the sacrament

of confirmation;

3° that having received first communion, these children are enriched more

fully and deeply through catechetical formation;

4° that catechetical instruction is given also to those who are physically or

mentally impeded, insofar as their condition permits;

357 See F.G. MORRISEY, “The Teaching Office of the Church,” in CLSGBI Comm, 429 (=MORRISEY,

“The Teaching Office of the Church”). 358 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 776, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3, 122; M. BALAM MEDINA, “La

función de enseñar del párroco,” in Revista Mexicana de Derecho Canónico, 9 (2003), 63-91; J.P. DOSS,

“Giovani e scelte nella vita cristiana: alcune considerazioni canoniche,” in Salesianum, 79 (2017), 377-403.


5° that the faith of youth and adults is strengthened, enlightened, and

developed through various means and endeavors.359

Like cc. 766, §4 and 771 with respect to preaching, c. 777 lays emphasis on

particular duties of the pastor in the ministry of the divine word with respect to catechetical

formation in the parish. The pastor is exhorted to see to these matters, observing any

diocesan norms that may exist. The first two duties pertain to preparation for the

sacraments. A third duty of the pastor is to see to the continuing catechetical formation of

children after first Communion so that their knowledge and faith can grow and deepen. A

fourth duty of pastors is to see to the catechetical formation of persons with physical or

mental disabilities as far as their condition permits. Finally, the pastor must take care to

offer faith formation to youth and adults by various means and endeavors so that their faith

be strengthened, enlightened, and developed. From all these duties arises the implicit right

of parishioners to these specific dimensions of catechetical formation.360

Right to catechesis in the works of institutes and societies

Canon 778. Religious superiors and superiors of societies of apostolic life

are to take care that catechetical instruction is imparted diligently in their

churches, schools, and other works entrusted to them in any way.361

359 Cf. CIC c. 777. Peculiari modo parochus, attentis normis ab Episcopo dioecesano statutis, curet:

1° ut apta catechesis impertiatur pro sacramentorum celebratione;

2° ut pueri, ope catecheticae institutionis per congruum tempus impertitae, rite praeparentur ad primam

receptionem sacramentorum paenitentiae et sanctissimae Eucharistiae necnon ad sacramentum

confirmationis;

3° ut iidem, prima communione recepta, uberius ac profundius catechetica efformatione excolantur;

4°ut catechetica institutio iis etiam tradatur, quantum eorum condicio sinat, qui corpore vel mente sint

praepediti;

5° ut iuvenum et adultorum fides, variis formis et inceptis, muniatur, illuminetur atque evolvatur. 360 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 777, in CLSA Comm2, 936; A. PERLASCA, “La prima

confessione dei fanciulli nel dinamismo dell’iniziazione cristiana,” in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale, 18

(2005), 79-102. 361 Cf. CIC c. 778. Curent Superiores religiosi et societatum vitae apostolicae ut in suis ecclesiis,

scholis aliisve operibus sibi quoquo modo concreditis, catechetica institutio sedulo impertiatur.


Canon 778 places a responsibility on religious superiors and superiors of societies

of apostolic life. Their obligation is to take care that catechetical formation is a part of their

institute’s or society’s ministry, be it in their churches, schools, or other works that are

entrusted to them in any way. From this obligation follows an implicit right to catechesis

enjoyed by the faithful who attend the churches, schools, and other works of these institutes

and societies. The obligation does not apply when members of these institutes or societies

are simply working for a parish, school, or other institution in the charge of the diocese or

another public juridic person.362

Right to suitable catechetical aids

Canon 779. Catechetical instruction is to be given by using all helps,

teaching aids, and instruments of social communication which seem more

effective so that the faithful, in a manner adapted to their character,

capabilities and age, and conditions of life, are able to learn Catholic

doctrine more fully and put it into practice more suitably.363

As part of the right to catechesis, there is also an implied right in the law to suitable

or adequate materials for catechesis. This canon is a wise pastoral encouragement about

the means to be used in the catechetical ministry that includes necessary adaptation of

modern methods in achieving these goals.364 The canon furthermore sets forth the duty of

persons responsible for catechesis to use tools of all kinds, stipulating that they are to be

adapted to the needs (and to the rights) of the faithful.365 The aim of utilizing these different

means is so that the faithful may more fully learn Catholic teaching and in return put it into

362 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 778, in CLSA Comm2, 937; see also J. FUENTES, “The Active

Participants in Catechesis and Their Dependence on the Magisterium (Canons 773-780),” in Studia

canonica, 23 (1989), 373-386. 363 Cf. CICc. 779. Institutio catechetica tradatur omnibus adhibitis auxiliis, subsidiis didacticis et

communicationis socialis instrumentis, quae efficaciora videantur ut fideles, ratione eorum indoli facultatibus

et aetati necnon vitae condicionibus aptata, plenius catholicam doctrinam ediscere eamque aptius in praxim

deducere valeant. 364 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 779, in CLSA Comm1, 559. 365 See FUENTES, Commentary on c. 779, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 131.


practice. This canon should be read in conjunction with the canons on the instruments of

social communication, especially 827 §§1 and 2 on catechisms and books used for religious

instruction.366

2.2 Rights Pertaining to Catholic Education

In this section we deal with rights that are related to Catholic education, which is

the subject of Title III of Book III of the Code.367 The canons of this Title clearly reflect

the teachings of Vatican II’s Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum

educationis, in asserting the rights and responsibilities of the various Christian faithful in

this area.368 The canons of concern to this study, those containing rights of the faithful,

treat the following matters: the right and duty of the Church of educating and the

responsibility of the pastors to provide a Catholic education (c. 794), the establishment and

promotion of Catholic schools (c. 800, §1), schools patronised by the diocesan bishop

(c. 802), vigilance over Catholic religious formation and education (c. 804, §2), vigilance

over Catholic instruction (c. 806, §2), the right to establish and govern universities (c. 807),

366 See J.M. HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church: A Commentary on Book III of the

Code of Canon Law, Ottawa, Saint Paul University Faculty of Canon Law, 2017, 131 (=HUELS, The Teaching

Office of the Catholic Church). 367 The Church has the duty and right to educate people because of its divinely given mission to help

them attain the fullness of their Christian lives. The Church seeks to vindicate its rights against sometimes

hostile governments. Pastors have the responsibility to see that all of the faithful enjoy some form of Catholic

education (c. 794); parents have the duty and the right to educate their children. This includes the right and

obligation to choose the most suitable means for the Catholic education of their offspring. The state should

assist parents in providing for this religious formation (c. 793). Parents’ prerogatives loom large in the Code.

It refers to Catholic schools as well as other means of education, e.g., public and private schools and

programmes of religious instruction. For a detailed study on Catholic education with the duties and

obligations of parents, see P. BAILLARGEON, The Canonical Rights and Duties of Parents in the Education

of their Children, JCD dissertation, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, 1986 (=BAILLARGEON, The Canonical

Rights and Duties of Parents). 368 See S.A. EUART, Commentary on cc. 793-821, in CLSA Comm2, 953.


the responsibility for appointing teachers in universities (c. 810, §1), provision for

theological studies (c. 811, §1), and the mandate to teach in Catholic colleges and

ecclesiastical universities.

Commenting on this section on Catholic Education, John Huels emphasizes that the

Latin word educatio not only means formal or classroom education but has the broader

meaning of the ‘upbringing’ of a child. This broader meaning actually lays the emphasis

on the parents369 and on their obligation and right to provide Catholic education and

formation for their children.370

Right to educate and right to a Catholic education

Canons 794 §1. The duty and right of educating belongs in a special way

to the Church, to which has been divinely entrusted the mission of assisting

persons so that they are able to reach the fullness of the Christian life.

§2. Pastors of souls have the duty of arranging everything so that all the

faithful have a Catholic education.371

369 The basic rights and obligations of parents in the matter of the religious education of their children

is a concern of the Code in several places. Canon 226, §2 makes a reference to the “right” of parents to

educate their children, while the conciliar passage at this point referred only to the obligation. In some of the

canons in Book III, the law refers to “Christian” education, but more often it will speak of “Catholic”

education. When the law, however, speaks of “Christian” education, it can usually be assumed from the

context that, in fact, it means “Catholic.” For instance, in c. 226, §2, it is stated that Christian education is to

be provided in accordance with the teaching of the Church. For Catholic education, see cc. 793; 794; 798;

and 801, and compare with cc. 226; 802; and 835, §4.

In some instances, we must recognize that parents are not available to carry out the fundamental

obligation of educating the children. This can be because of death or other unfortunate circumstances. For

this reason, the canons often refer to those who take their place: cc. 774; 793; 868; 914. Among other canons

referring to rights and obligations of parents relative to education, we could note c. 799 on the right to

education in conformity with the religious and moral convictions of the parents; c. 1055, § 1, on the nature

of Christian marriage; cc. 1125; 1154; 1366; 1689; and so forth.

As general background on this theme, see BAILLARGEON, The Canonical Rights and Duties of

Parents. See also F.G. MORRISEY, “The Rights of Parents in the Education of their Children (Canons 796-

806),” in Studia canonica, 23 (1989), 429-444 (= MORRISEY, “The Rights of Parents in the Education of their

Children”); and M.T. CERDÁ DONAT, “Educación católica y sociedad civil,” in Anuario de Derecho

Canónico, 5 (2016), 165-187. 370 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 178. 371 Cf. CCEO, c. 628; CIC, c. 794, §1. Singulari ratione officium et ius educandi spectat ad

Ecclesiam, cui divinitus missio concredita est homines adiuvandi, ut ad christianae vitae plenitudinem

pervenire valeant.

§2. Animarum pastoribus officium est omnia disponendi, ut educatione catholica omnes fideles fruantur.


This canon concerns a right and duty with respect to educating and a right to a

Catholic education. The first paragraph of the canon establishes explicitly the duty and

right of the Church of educating. Since the Church is the people of God, this duty and right

pertains to all the christifideles. It is a duty and right of the divine law, entrusted to the

Church by Christ (cf. cc. 204, §1, 211, 216, 225).372 By fulfilling this duty and right of

educating, all the Christian faithful comprising the Church of Christ work for the

realization of God’s plan and actually carries out its mission of evangelization and salvation

to all people.373

The second paragraph of canon 794 lays the primary duty on the pastors of souls to

provide everything towards Catholic education (officium est omnia disponendi).374 The

canon expresses a duty, not a right, but the right to a Catholic education is implicitly

contained in the duty of the pastors of souls to provide it. The pastores animarum are those

officeholders who have the care of souls, especially diocesan bishops, pastors, parochial

vicars, and chaplains.375 Regarding the pastor of a parish (parochus), c. 528, §1 speaks

about the special care of the parish priest for the Catholic education of children and young

people.376 As Coriden asserts, however, it is ultimately the community of faith which must

372 See D. CITO, Commentary on c. 794, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 200; see also G. DE LIMA,

“Catholic Education: Challenges and Prospects,” in Vidyajyoti, 69 (2005), 675-686; J. CHINGANTHARA,

“Catholic Education: Perspectives of Canon Law,” in The Living Word, 116 (2010), 292-310; J. GALLAGHER,

“Parents Right to Educate: A ‘Right’ Inalienable,” in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 76 (1976), 29-54. 373 See EUART, Commentary on c. 794, in CLSA Comm2, 954; cf. H.A. BUETOW, The Catholic

School: Its Roots, Identity, and Future, New York, Crossroad Publishing, 1988. 374 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 182. 375 Ibid. See also CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 794, in CLSA Comm1, 555. 376 See MORRISEY, “The Rights of Parents in the Education of their Children,” 436. See also M.A.

HAYES, “As Stars for All Eternity: A Reflection on Canons 793-795,” in Studia canonica, 23 (1989), 409-

427 (=HAYES, “As Stars for All Eternity”).


bear the real responsibility, while the pastors are the stimulators and coordinators of the

effort.377

Right to establish and direct schools

Canon 800 §1. The Church has the right to establish and direct schools of

any discipline, type, and level.378

This canon is an assertion of the Church’s right to establish and run any school at

any level, of any type, and of any discipline. This is a particular application with respect to

schools of the divine law right of the Church to educate, as noted above in c. 794. The

Church has always been a leader in education through various institutions it establishes and

directs which impart education, including schools at all levels, universities, parishes,

diocesan centres, etc. The Church has founded and operated universities long before the

civil governments or state assumed these responsibilities. This canon is a forceful assertion

that the Church continues to enjoy that right.379 The “Church” in question in not only the

Church as institution but more fundamentally all the baptized faithful who comprise it.

Right to schools imbued with a Christian spirit

Canon 802 §1. If schools which offer an education imbued with a Christian

spirit are not available, it is for the diocesan bishop to take care that they are

established.

§2. Where it is expedient, the diocesan bishop is to make provision for the

establishment of professional schools, technical schools, and other schools

required by special needs.380

377 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 794, in CLSA Comm1, 565. 378 Cf. CIC, c. 800, §1. Ecclesiae ius est scholas cuiusvis disciplinae, generis et gradus condendi ac

moderandi. 379 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 194. See also D. CITO, Exegetical

Comm, vol. 3/1, 214; and Dimitrios SALACHAS, Il magistero e l’evangelizzazione dei popoli nei Codici latino

e orientale: Studio teologico-giuridico comparativo, Bologna, Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 2001, 203

(=SALACHAS, Il magistero e l’evangelizzazione dei popoli nei Codici latino e orientale). 380 Cf. CCEO, c. 635; CIC, c. 802, §1. Si praesto non sint scholae in quibus educatio tradatur

christiano spiritu imbuta, Episcopi dioecesani est curare ut condantur.

§2. Ubi id expediat, Episcopus dioecesanus provideat ut scholae quoque condantur professionales et

technicae necnon aliae quae specialibus necessitatibus requirantur.


The first paragraph of this canon treats the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to

see to the establishment of schools filled with the Christian spirit, especially if they are

lacking in his diocese. Implicit in this responsibility of the bishop is the right of the faithful

to have such schools in their diocese. Although the canon is directed to the diocesan bishop

personally, he does not necessarily have to found diocesan schools as such. Rather, if

schools imbued with a Christian spirit are lacking, he is to “take care” that they are

established (est curare ut condantur). He can fulfill this responsibility by inviting lay

persons, associations of the faithful, religious institutes, societies of apostolic life, and

others to establish schools in quibus educatio tradatur christiano spiritu imbutu.381

The second paragraph of this canon addresses the possible need for various kinds

of schools, not just those that teach the Catholic religion but also professional, technical

and other schools required for special needs of the local Church. It is left to the discretion

of the bishop to determine whether this is advantageous for his diocese. Certainly, the need

for such schools varies from region to region. The canon offers the examples of

professional and technical schools, but it is open to any kind of school, leaving it to the

diocesan bishop to determine whether to establish them.382 This is not a strict duty of the

bishop, so the faithful do not have a strict right to these schools. Rather, the implicit right

in the canon is the same as that explicitly stated in canon 800, §1, namely, the right of the

Church to establish and direct schools of any discipline, type, and level.

Right to good teachers

Canon 804 §2. The local ordinary is to be concerned that those who are

designated teachers of religious instruction in schools, even in non-Catholic

381 See CITO, Commentary on c. 802, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 220. 382 See EUART, Commentary on c. 802, in CLSA Comm2, 957.


ones, are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and

teaching skill.383

This canon lays the responsibility on the ordinary of the place concerning the

requisite qualities of the teachers of the Catholic religion, whether in a Catholic school or

non-Catholic school. He is to be sollicitous (sollicitus sit) that the teachers of religious

instruction in schools are outstanding (praestantes) in these qualities. This is not only the

responsibility of the diocesan bishop for vigilance and supervision of the religious

education effort as seen in the first paragraph of this canon, but this second paragraph of

the canon addresses the local ordinary, including the vicar general and episcopal vicar

within their competence.384 This canon emphasizes the duty of ensuring that those

appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even the non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in

correct doctrine, are a witness of the Christian life, and have an adequate ability to teach.385

Implicit in this requirement is the right of the faithful to have teachers of religion who are

“outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill.”

Right to good schools

Canon 806 §2. Directors of Catholic schools are to take care under the

watchfulness of the local ordinary that the instruction which is given in them

is at least as academically distinguished as that in the other schools of the

area.386

383 Cf. CCEO, c. 639; CIC, c. 804, §2. Loci Ordinarius sollicitus sit, ut qui ad religionis institutionem

in scholis, etiam non catholicis, deputentur magistri recta doctrina, vitae christianae testimonio atque arte

paedagogica sint praestantes. 384 See EUART, Commentary on c. 804 in CLSA Comm2, 959. 385 See CITO, Commentary on c. 804, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 231; cf. W. GALVIN,

“Ecclesiastical Legislation on Christian Education with Special Application to Current Problems,” in The

Jurist, 14(1954), 463-480. 386 Cf. CCEO, c. 634, §3; CIC, c. 806, §2. Curent scholarum catholicarum Moderatores, advigilante

loci Ordinario, ut institutio quae in iisdem traditur pari saltem gradu ac in aliis scholis regionis, ratione

scientifica sit praestans.


This canon concerns the quality of education in Catholic schools. It is mainly

directed to those who are administrators and focuses on the quality of the educational

programs in the school, in particular, that the instruction in the Catholic school is not

inferior to that of other schools in the area. The local ordinary also has a role in that he is

to be vigilant in overseeing the responsibility of the directors of Catholic schools. The word

“directors” of Catholic schools refers to those who are actually in the governance of the

schools (principal, vice-principal, pastor, administrator, school board, etc.).387 Implicit in

this duty of the directors is the right of the faithful to have Catholic schools that are at least

as academically distinguished as other schools of the area.

Right to erect and direct universities

Canon 807. The Church has the right to erect and direct universities, which

contribute to a more profound human culture, the fuller development of the

human person, and the fulfillment of the teaching function of the Church.388

This explicit right of the Church to erect and direct universities pertains both to

juridical persons in the Church as well as to all the christifideles. The major source of

universal law governing Catholic universities that are not ecclesiastical universities is the

apostolic constitution of John Paul II, Ex corde Ecclesiae, which contains norms on the

establishment of a Catholic university.389 The canon mainly affirms the two rights of the

387 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 214; J.P. BEAL, “Where’s the Body?

Where’s the Blood? The Teaching Authority of the Diocesan Bishop and the Rights of Catholic School

Teachers,” in CLSA Proceedings (1995), 91-128; B.A. CUSACK, A Study of the Relationship between the

Diocesan Bishop and Catholic Schools below the Level of Higher Education in the United States: Canons

801-806 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Studies, no. 525, Washington, DC, Catholic University

of America, 1988. 388 Cf. CCEO, c. 640, §1; CIC, c. 807. Ius est Ecclesiae erigendi et moderandi studiorum

universitates, quae quidem ad altiorem hominum culturam et pleniorem personae humanae promotionem

necnon ad ipsius Ecclesiae munus docendi implendum conferant. 389 See JOHN PAUL II, apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, 15 August 1990, in AAS, 82 (1990),

1475-1509, English translation in CLD, vol. 12, 511-532 (= ECE). Ex corde Ecclesiae contains a strong

affirmation of the value and importance of Catholic colleges and universities and a call to renewal and re-

examination of Catholic higher education in light of gospel and culture. See José SARAIVA MARTINS, “Iter e

punti salienti della Cost. Apost. Ex corde Ecclesiae,” in Seminarium, 42 (1990), 657-665. For commentaries


Church to establish universities and to govern them. The general purposes and goals of a

Catholic university are to contribute to the advancement of human culture, the fuller

promotion of the human person, and the fulfillment of the Church’s munus docendi.390

Rights concerning professors, Catholic doctrine

Canon 810 §1. The authority competent according to the statutes has the

duty to make provision so that teachers are appointed in Catholic

universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical qualifications are

outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and that they are

removed from their function when they lack these requirements; the manner

of proceeding defined in the statutes is to be observed.

§2. The conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops concerned have the

duty and right of being watchful so that the principles of Catholic doctrine

are observed faithfully in these same universities.391

The canon is directed to the authorities competent to determine the quality of

teachers appointed to Catholic universities and to watch over the observance of Catholic

doctrine.392 The two paragraphs of the canon, by imposing duties on the authorities

mentioned, imply concomitant rights of the faithful, namely, the right to have teachers in

Catholic universities who are outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and

the right to have Catholic universities in which the principles of Catholic doctrine are

observed faithfully.

on Ex corde Ecclesiae, see J. PROVOST, “A Canonical Commentary on Ex corde Ecclesiae,” in J. LANGAN

(ed.), Catholic Universities in Church and Society: A Dialogue on ‘Ex corde Ecclesiae,’ Washington, DC,

Georgetown Univerisity, 1993, 105-136; P. DE POOTER, “L’université catholique: Au service de l’Église et

de la société,” in Ius Ecclesiae, 4 (1992), 45-78. 390 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 221; cf. A. GALLIN, “On the Road:

Toward a Definition of a Catholic University,” in The Jurist, 48 (1988), 536-558. 391 Cf. c. 810, §1. Auctoritati iuxta statuta competenti officium est providendi ut in universitatibus

catholicis nominentur docentes qui praeterquam idoneitate scientifica et paedagogica, doctrinae integritate et

vitae probitate praestent utque, deficientibus his requisitis, servato modo procedendi in statutis definito, a

munere removeantur.

§2. Episcoporum conferentiae et Episcopi dioecesani, quorum interest, officium habent et ius invigilandi, ut

in iisdem universitatibus principia doctrinae catholicae fideliter servantur. 392 See EUART, Commentary on c. 810, in CLSA Comm2, 965.


The first paragraph addresses the institutional authority who has this responsibility

in virtue of the university’s own statutes.393 The canon gives general guidance regarding

acceptable norms for the appointment and removal of teachers in Catholic colleges and

universities. The canon also instructs that specific criteria and procedures should be

developed by the individual institutions to assist in the application of the norms.394 The two

qualities of the university professors are stated here: one related to scientific and

pedagogical expertise and the other concerning doctrinal integrity and uprightness of

life.395

The second paragraph addresses the duty and right of vigilance over the observance

Catholic doctrine in Catholic colleges and universities, a duty and explicit right of the

episcopal conference and the diocesan bishop.396 What could this duty and right of

vigilance imply? It certainly does not imply ownership, governance, jurisdiction, control,

intervention, or even visitation. Those are all levels of authority and responsibility distinct

from the ius invigilandi. Rather, it means the duty and right of a pastoral watchfulness and

a solicitous oversight.397 The bishops are successors of the apostles (c. 753), authoritative

teachers of the faith (c. 386, §1) and so are competent to make judgments regarding the

393 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 810, in CLSA Comm1, 574. 394 See EUART, Commentary on c. 810, in CLSA Comm2, 965; cf. G. DE LIMA, “CatholicEducation:

Challenges and Prospects,” in Vidyajyoti, 69 (2005), 675-686. 395 See CITO, Commentary on c. 810, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 253. 396 Some of the duties of the diocesan bishop given in the Code may have consequences for both

ecclesiastical universities and faculties and Catholic universities and other institutes of higher studies located

in the bishop’s territory. E.g., the bishop is obliged to protect firmly the integrity and unity of the faith by

whatever means seem most appropriate, while at the same time recognising a lawful freedom of research (c.

386, §2). Related duties include protecting the unity of the universal Church, promoting its discipline and

insisting on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, and preventing abuses from creeping into ecclesiastical

discipline (c. 392). See CORIDEN, Commentary on cc. 807-814, in CLSA Comm1, 574. 397 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 810, in CLSA Comm1, 574. See also T.J. GREEN, “The Church’s

Teaching Mission: Some Aspects of Normative Role of Episcopal Conferences,” in Studia canonica, 27

(1993), 23-57.


observance of Catholic teaching.398 Moreover, the faithful have an implied right to

doctrinal vigilance by the conference of bishops in virtue of its duty (officium) to provide

it.

Right to theological instruction

Canon 811 §1. The competent ecclesiastical authority is to take care that in

Catholic universities a faculty or institute or at least a chair of theology is

erected in which classes are also given for lay students.

§2. In individual Catholic universities, there are to be classes which

especially treat those theological questions which are connected to the

disciplines of their faculties.399

The first paragraph of this canon makes it mandatory upon the ecclesiastical

authorities to promote the teaching of theology in Catholic colleges and universities, also

for the benefit of the lay students. Here the canon does not specify who that ecclesiastical

authority actually is, but it would include the Holy See, episcopal conferences, and

diocesan bishops. The canon offers three options for theological programs in Catholic

universities: a faculty (i.e., a college, department), an institute or a chair of theology. The

choice and discernment depend on the situation of the college or university and its

resources.400

The second paragraph reflects the concern that theological studies are not to be

isolated from the other academic disciplines in the educational enterprise. Such interaction

between these disciplines enriches theology, and it gives a better understanding of the

398 See EUART, Commentary on c. 810, in CLSA Comm2, 965. See also D.M. O’CONNELL, An

Analysis of Canon 810 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Its Application to the Catholic Universities and

Institutes of Higher Studies, JCD dissertation, Washington, Catholic University of America, 1990. 399 Cf. CCEO, c. 643; CIC, c. 811, §1. Curet auctoritas ecclesiastica competens ut in universitatibus

catholicis erigatur facultas aut institutum aut saltem cathedra theologiae, in qua lectiones laicis quoque

studentibus tradantur.

§2. In singulis universitatibus catholicis lectiones habeantur, inquibus eae praecipuetractentur quaestiones

theologicae, quae cum disciplinis earundem facultatum sunt conexae. 400 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 811, in CLSA Comm1, 575.


world today and its needs.401 Both paragraphs of the canon contain implicit rights of the

faithful: in the first paragraph, the right to have theology taught in a Catholic university

and, in the second, the right that theological questions also be addressed in some of the

other disciplines offered at the university.

Canon 812. Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of

higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent

ecclesiastical authority.402

This canon establishes the requirement of an ecclesiastical mandate (mandatum)403

for those who teach theological disciplines in Catholic institutions of higher learning.404

All those who teach the theological disciplines, including the laity (cf. c. 229, §3), in any

institutes of higher studies are required to have a mandate.405 The word “mandate” is used

401 See EUART, Commentary on c. 811, in CLSA Comm2, 966; cf. J. P. BEAL, “Catholic Theological

Faculties in the United States,” in Studia canonica, 37 (2003), 443-466. 402 Cf. CCEO, c. 644; CIC, c. 812. Qui in studiorum superiorum institutis quibuslibet disciplinas

tradunt theologicas, auctoritatis ecclesiasticae competentis mandatum habeant oportet. 403 The conference of bishops of the USA, in their particular norms, offers a good explanation of the

juridical nature of the mandatum. 1) The mandatum is fundamentally an acknowledgement by Church

authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is a teacher within the full Communion of the

Catholic Church. 2) The mandatum should not be construed as an appointment, authorization, delegation, or

approbation of one’s teaching by Church authorities. Those who have received a mandatum teach in their

own name in virtue of their baptism and their academic and professional competence, not in the name of the

bishop or of the Church’s magisterium. 3) The mandatum recognizes the professor’s commitment and

responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching

anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.

The question of what are the “theological disciplines” for which a professor requires a mandateis

best regulated in particular law, preferably in the implementing legislation of the conference of bishops or,

lacking that, in diocesan law or the university statutes. In addition to its particular law implementing Ex corde

Ecclesiae, the bishops’ conference of the USA also issued some “Guidelines” on the mandatum. In these

Guidelines, the theological disciplines for which professors must have a mandate to teach are specified as

Scripture, dogmatic theology, moral theology, pastoral theology, canon law, liturgy, and church history. See

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, The Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States,

17 November 1999, in CLD, vol. 14, 755-777, art. 4, no. 4 e. Although binding only in the USA, the norms

were granted the recognitio of the Congregation for Catholic Education on 3 May 2000. Insofar as this

indicates the praxis Curiae Romanae (c. 19), the norms may be used to interpret the law in other places if a

lacuna should arise. See also NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Guidelines concerning the

Academic mandatum in Catholic Universities (canon 812), 15 June 2001, in Origins, 31 (2001), 128-131,

no. 2 d. 404 See EUART, Commentary on c. 811, in CLSA Comm2, 966. 405 Who is obliged to seek the mandate from the ecclesiastical authority, the university or the

professor? The answer is suggested in the canon by the words any institutes (in institutis quibuslibet) of

higher studies. The word quilibet (“any at all”) indicates that the legislator is going beyond the immediate


variously in canon law, at times to denote a person’s acting in the name of the one

mandating, while other times acting in one’s own name but with a juridical tie to the Church

in virtue of the mandate granted by ecclesiastical authority.406 It is the latter meaning at

play in this canon.

James Conn states that the purpose of the mandate of c. 812 “is to assure the

community that someone teaching theology is doing so in communion with the Church,

that he is faithful to the Magisterium, and that he is not proposing doctrine that is opposed

to it. The Catholic faithful and the parents of Catholic youth have a right to this assurance

in choosing institutions of higher education. This right is enshrined in the law in a variety

of places and is derivative of other guaranteed rights….” He mentions the rights in cc. 213,

217, 226, §2, 793, §1 and 797.407 Conn makes this conclusion, not on the basis of the

context of these canons which only treat Catholic universities and similar institutes of higher studies and is

here concerned with teaching theology in any such institution at all, including non-Catholic institutions. It

follows that this canon does not bind the university but only the individual professors and, moreover, only

professors who are Catholic. This is evident from the rule of canon 11: only Catholics are bound by canon

law. 406 See R.P. DEELEY, The Mandate for Those Who Teach Theology in Institutes of Higher Learning:

An Interpretation of Canon 812 of the Code of Canon Law, Rome, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1986;

ID., “An Interpretation of Canon 812,” in PCLSA, 50 (1988), 70-85. See also E.F. DALY, “The Needed

Mandate to Teach,” in CLSA Proceedings, 46 (1984), 114-129; P. DE POOTER, “La ‘mission canonique’ el le

‘mandatum’ au sein des universités ecclésiastiques et catholiques: un jeu de mots ou une distinction plus

fondamentale?” in Ius Ecclesiae, 14 (2004), 595-618; S.A. EUART, Church-State Implications in the United

States of Canon 812 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, JCD dissertation, Washington, DC, Catholic University

of America, 1989; L. ÖRSY, “The Mandate to Teach Theological Disciplines: Glosses on Canon 812 of the

New Code,” in Theological Studies, 44 (1983), 476-488; R. PAGÉ, “La responsibilité des évêques dans

l’enseignenent: le mandat,” in Ius Ecclesiae, 5 (1993), 699-717; A. DULLES, “The Mandate to Teach,” in

America, 158 (1988), 293-295; and HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 242. 407 On the other hand, he/she who teaches in virtue of a “mandate” continues to exercise his/her own

personal responsibility as a Christian faithful, because the mandate does not communicate any sharing in the

authentic power of teaching nor any particular function within the Christian community. It simply is an

official attestation from the hierarchical superior that the one teaching is a Catholic in communion with the

Church, whereas in the content of his/her teaching there is nothing to contradict this good standing. See

J.J. CONN, “The Mandate of Can. 812 Revisited,” in James J. CONN and Luigi SABBARESE (eds.), Iustitia in

caritate. Miscellanea di studi in onore di Velasio de Paolis, Vatican City, Urbaniana University, 2005, 227-

248, at 246-247. See also HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 242.


wording of c. 812, but on his deep research and reflection on the canon that resulted in his

doctoral thesis on this subject.

As noted in the Introduction to this thesis, we believe Conn’s discovery of a right

in this canon to be an example of a “tacit” right of the faithful, since no right is discerned

from the wording of the canon, not even implicit. The canon imposes an obligation directly

on the professors of the theological disciplines to have the mandatum, but no parallel

obligation is expressly placed on the ecclesiastical authority or the university itself to see

that they have it. This could be remedied in particular law, but it is not found in the

universal law, neither in the canon nor in Ex corde Ecclesiae.

2.3 Rights in the Canons on Instruments of Social Communication

The canons of Title IV of Book III are centered more on books and on the means

of censorship of them to preserve the Church’s doctrine and make it known. Three canons

in this Title contain implicit rights of the faithful flowing from duties imposed on

officeholders. These are the duties of the pastors regarding writings and other media

(c. 823) and the requirements for textbooks used in schools and for writings available in

churches for display and distribution (c. 827); there is also an implicit right in c. 822, as

follows.

Rights concerning instruments of social communication

Canon 822 §1. The pastors of the Church, using a right proper to the Church

in fulfilling their function, are to endeavor to make use of the instruments

of social communication.

§2. These same pastors are to take care to teach the faithful that they are

bound by the duty of cooperating so that a human and Christian spirit

enlivens the use of instruments of social communication.

§3. All the Christian faithful, especially those who in any way have a role

in the regulation or use of the same instruments, are to be concerned to offer


assistance in pastoral action so that the Church exercises its function

effectively through these instruments.408

The first two paragraphs are exhortations directed to the pastores Ecclesiae. The

obligations are laid on the pastors of the Church, in fulfilling their office (munus), to be

diligent in making use of the instruments of social communication.409 The third paragraph

is directed to all the faithful.410

The first paragraph of the canon exhorts that it is the duty of the pastors of the

Church to use these instruments in carrying out their pastoral mission.411 The canon asserts

that the Church has every right to use media in fulfilling her mission.412 Since the pastors

of the Church have this obligation to make use of the media in exercising the munus

docendi, it follows that the Christian faithful have an implicit right that the media be used

for evangelizing and educational purposes.

The second paragraph is also addressed to the pastores Ecclesiae. Their duty here

is to instruct the faithful on their own duty to imbue the world of social communications

with a human and Christian spirit.413 The implicit right of the faithful is to have some

formation (pastoral letters, classes, etc.) on how the uses of the instruments of social

communication are to be animated with a human and Christian spirit. Some of the lay

408 Cf. CCEO, c. 651; CIC, c. 822, §1. Ecclesiae pastores, in suo munere explendo iure Ecclesiae

proprio utentes, instrumenta communicationis socialis adhibere satagant.

§2. Iisdem pastoribus curae sit fideles edocere se officio teneri cooperandi ut instrumentorum

communicationis socialis usus humano christianoque spiritu vivificetur.

§3. Omnes christifideles, ii praesertim qui quoquo modo in eorundem instrumentorum ordinatione aut usu

partem habent, solliciti sint operam adiutricem actioni pastorali praestare, ita ut Ecclesia etiam his

instrumentis munus suum efficaciter exerceat. 409 See PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, pastoral instruction Aetatis novæ on

social communications, 22 February 1992, in AAS, 84 (1992), 447-468; English translation in Origins, 21

(1991-1992), 669-677. 410 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 288. 411 See C. J. ERRÁZURIZ, Commentary on c. 822, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 294; cf. V. CRUZ,

“Canon Law on Media,” in Philippine Canonical Forum, 7 (2005), 205-228. 412 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 822, in CLSA Comm1, 579. 413 See ERRÁZURIZ, Commentary on c. 822, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 294.


faithful have more influence over the management of the media than do ecclesiastical

authorities, so they are the faithful most in need of such formation.414

The final paragraph stipulates that all the faithful, especially those involved in the

world of communications, are to be diligent in supporting the Church’s pastoral action

taking place through communications media.415 This is an exhortation that has more the

character of a general obligation than a right.

Right to publications free of doctrinal error

Canon 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and

morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so

that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through

writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have

the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian

faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment

and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith

or good morals.

§2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences

of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the

Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the

Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of

God.416

This canon is about pastoral and ecclesiastical vigilance over writings and other

media, particularly those dealing with subjects touching on faith or morals (mores).

Paragraph one of the canon lists three duties that are also rights of the hierarchy (the

pastores Ecclesiae). The first is the duty of vigilance over the content of books or other

media so that they do not harm the faith or morals of the Christian faithful. The second is

414 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 822, in CLSA Comm1, 579. 415 See ERRÁZURIZ, Commentary on c. 822, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3, 294. 416 Cf. CCEO, c. 652; CIC, c. 823, §1. Ut veritatum fidei morumque integritas servetur, officum et

ius est Ecclesiae pastoribus invigilandi, ne scriptis aut usu instrumentorum communicationis socialis

christifidelium fidei aut moribus detrimentum afferatur; item exigendi, ut quae fidem moresve tangant a

christifidelibus edenda suo iudicio subiciantur; necnon reprobandi scripta quae rectae fidei aut bonis moribus

noceant.

§2. Officium et ius, de quibus in §1, competunt Episcopis, tum singulis tum in conciliis particularibus vel

Episcoporum conferentiis adunatis quoad christifideles suae curae commissos, supremae autem Ecclesiae

auctoritati quoad universum Dei populum.


the right and duty to demand a prior review of those writings related to faith and morals.

The third is the right and duty to admonish (reprobare) those writings that are harmful to

the rectitude of the faith or good morals.417 The first right and duty applies to writings and

other media of social communication; the second and third are limited to writings (scripta).

These three duties and rights of the pastors collectively imply a right of the faithful, namely,

the right to Catholic books and other means of social communication that are free of

doctrinal and moral error. The means for assuring this right are laid down in the subsequent

canons of Title III, especially c. 827 as treated below.

The second paragraph of c. 823 specifies the “pastors of the Church” who are

competent to deal with the issues mentioned in paragraph one of this canon. The episcopal

prerogatives can be exercised either individually by the diocesan bishop himself or

collegially when bishops gather in a particular council or in the episcopal conference. The

canon gives this right and duty to the individual diocesan bishops by the use of the

expression “with regard to the Christian faithful committed to their care,”418 which is also

applied to the circumscriptions of the particular council and conference of bishops. The

exercise of this duty and right for the universal Church is the responsibility of the supreme

authority of the Church, the pope and the college of bishops, who are assisted by the Roman

Curia, especially the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Rights concerning specific publications

Canon 827 §2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture,

theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral

disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in

elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with

417 See ERRÁZURIZ, Commentary on c. 823, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3, 301; cf. H. SCHMITZ, “Das

Nihil Obstat des Diözesanbischofs,” in Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, 170 (2001), 51-73. 418 See CORIDEN, Commentary on c. 823, in CLSA Comm1, 580.


the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by

it subsequently.

§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals

cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they

have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical

authority or approved by it subsequently.419

This canon has four paragraphs, two of which contain implicit rights of the faithful.

Paragraph one concerns text books, and paragraph four is on books or other writings

available in churches or oratories. The textbooks of paragraph two are those written and

used for classroom instruction only. The textbooks that require ecclesiastical approval are

those on sacred scripture, theology, canon law, Church history, and religious or moral

disciplines. The approval may be given either before or after the book’s publication. The

competent authority is the local ordinary of the author or the publishing house (c. 824, §1).

The canon alludes to schools at all levels, from primary stage through college, both those

which are Catholic (c. 803) and non-Catholic schools in which the Catholic religion is

taught (cf. c. 804).420

Paragraph four deals with books or other writings on matters of religion or morals

that are to be displayed, sold, or given away in churches or oratories. Such writings require

an advanced ecclesiastical permission (licentia) prior to publication, or else a subsequent

approval (approbatio) after publication. This rule is to be understood in light of the

particular attention given in the law to churches and oratories by virtue of their sacred

419 Cf. CCEO, c. 659; CIC, c. 827, §2. Nisi cum approbatione competentis auctoritatis ecclesiasticae

editi sint aut ab ea postea approbati, in scholis, sive elementariis sive mediis sive superioribus, uti textus,

quibus institutio nititur, adhiberi non possunt libri qui quaestiones recipiunt ad sacram Scripturam, ad

theologiam, ius canonicum, historiam ecclesiasticam, et ad religiosas aut morales disciplinas pertinentes.

§4. In ecclesiis oratoriisve exponi, vendi aut dari non possunt libri vel alia scripta de quaestionibus religionis

aut morum tractantia, nisi cum licentia competentis auctoritatis ecclesiasticae edita sint aut ab ea postea

approbata. 420 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 312.


character (cf. cc. 1210 and 1213).421 The prohibition of the fourth paragraph (non possunt

nisi) is implicitly directed to and binds the pastors of parishes and other priests and

superiors who have charge of churches and oratories (cf. 1214, 1223).422

The two paragraphs of this canon are concrete applications of the right implied in

c. 823. The faithful, consequently, have the right that the textbooks used for instruction in

schools on religious subjects, as well as written materials on religion or morals distributed

in their churches and oratories, are free of doctrinal errors harmful to their faith and good

morals. This right flows not from the requirement placed on the author or publisher to seek

the imprimatur but rather from the duty of the local ordinary to exercise vigilance over the

media and his obligation to demand that writings on religious subjects be submitted to his

judgement, as discussed above with reference to c. 823.

421 See ERRÁZURIZ, Commentary on c. 827, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 317; cf. R. BARRETT,

“The Pitfalls of the Imprimatur: A Gloss on Canon 827 §2,” in Angelicum, 77 (2000), 165-202. 422 See HUELS, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, 313.


Conclusion

In this chapter we examined the rights of the faithful in the canons of Book III of

the Code of Canon Law, entitled De Ecclesiae munere docendi. The canons of this book

on the teaching office of the Church are all related to the “prophetic office” of the Church

of announcing the good news of Jesus Christ to all peoples. Various explicit and implicit

rights were identified in several categories: rights related to the ministry of the divine word,

especially the rights to preaching and catechetical formation; rights with respect to Catholic

education; and rights with respect to the publication of books and other media by Catholic

authors on topics of faith and morals.

Several canons, additionally, deal with other rights of the faithful with respect to

the Church’s teaching office. Among the rights contained in Book III, a few are of the

divine law. These are the right to preach the gospel to all peoples (c. 747, §1), the right to

follow one’s own conscience in the discernment of truth about God and religion (c. 748,

§1) and the concominant right not to be coerced to embrace the Catholic faith against one’s

own conscience (c. 748, §2), the fundamental duty of the faithful to assume their own role

in the mission work of the Church (c. 781) and their consequent right to participate in the

Church’s mission effort (cf. c. 791, 4º), and the right and duty of the Church (all the faithful)

to educate (c. 794). Most of these rights of the divine law are rooted in the words of Christ

in the Gospel of Matthew to go out to the nations and announce the good news (Mt 28:18-

20). The rights concerning freedom of religion are of the divine natural law.

Several of the rights in Book III are explicit, that is, the word “right” or an

equivalent term is explicitly used in the canon. These are the right of the Church (all the

faithful) to preach the Gospel to all peoples (c. 747, §1), the right of the faithful to have the


word of God preached to them (c. 762), the right to establish any kind of school (c. 800,

§1), and the right to establish and govern universities (c. 807).

Most of the rights in Book III are implicit and typically are the consequence of the

concomitant duties imposed on Church ministers and officeholders. With respect to the

ministry of the divine word, these are the right of the faithful to have various means used

in proclaiming Christian teaching (c. 761); the right to have preaching from bishops,

priests, and deacons (cc. 763, 757, 762, 764); the right to have a homily preached at Masses

on Sundays and holy days of obligation (c. 767 §§ 2, 4); the right to have homilies and

other forms of preaching that incorporate certain values (c. 768); the right to have preaching

in the form of spiritual exercises or sacred missions (c. 770); the right to catechetical

formation (cc. 773, 766), in particular, that which is organized by the pastor of the parish

(c. 777) and in the apostolate of religious and secular institutes (c. 778); and the right to

have various means used in catechetical instruction (c. 779).

With respect to Catholic education, the implicit rights of the faithful are the right to

have Catholic schools patronized by the diocesan bishop (c.802); the right to have teachers

of religion who are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and

teaching skill (c. 804, §2); the right to an education in a Catholic school that is equal to that

of other schools in the area (c. 806, §2); the right to erect and direct universities (c. 807);

the right to have teachers in Catholic universities who are outstanding in integrity of

doctrine and probity of life and the right to have Catholic universities in which the

principles of Catholic doctrine are observed faithfully (c. 810); the right to have theology

taught in a Catholic university and the right that theological questions also be addressed in

some of the other disciplines offered at the university (c. 811). An additional right, albeit


tacit, is the right of the faithful to know which Catholic university professors of theological

disciplines have the required mandatum (c. 812).

Finally, with respect to the instruments of social communication, the Code

implicitly gives three rights to the faithful: that the media be used for evangelizing and

educational purposes (c. 822, §1); to have some formation on how the uses of the

instruments of social communication are to be animated with a human and Christian spirit

(c. 822, §2); and that Catholic books and other means of social communication be free of

doctrinal and moral error (cc. 823, §1; 827).

124

CHAPTER THREE

RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE MUNUS SANCTIFICANDI

Book IV of the Code, titled “The Sanctifying Office of the Church” (De Ecclesiae

munere sanctificandi) is divided into three parts. Following several introductory canons on

the liturgy and the sacraments (cc. 834-848), Part I treats the sacraments in seven titles for

each sacrament (cc. 849-1165).Part II is on other acts of divine worship with five titles on

sacramentals; the liturgy of the hours; funerals; the veneration of the saints, sacred images,

and relics; and a vow and an oath (cc. 1166-1204). Part III has two titles on sacred places

and sacred times (cc. 1205-1253). This is a sizeable Book of the Code, but our concern is

the treatment of only those canons dealing with explicit and implicit rights common to all

the faithful. These are organized into seven categories: rights to the official liturgical

celebrations of the Church, explicit rights to the sacraments, implicit rights to the

sacraments, rights to sacraments in danger of death, rights to preparation for the

sacraments, rights to Church funerals, and rights concerning churches.

3.1 Rights to the Official Liturgical Celebrations of the Church

The identity of the Church is revealed in a pre-eminent way whenever Christ’s

faithful gather to worship God. The liturgy, which includes the celebration of the

sacraments, is central to the Church’s worship, evoking the faith and deepening the

spirituality of the faithful.423 Given its centrality in the Church’s life, there is extensive

legislation governing the liturgy and sacraments. Our concern here is only with the

423 See J.M. HUELS, “Preparation for the Sacraments: Faith, Rights, Laws,” in Studia canonica, 28

(1994), 33-58, 34 (=HUELS, “Preparation for the Sacraments”).

Chapter 3: Rights in Book IV 125

regulation of the liturgy in Book IV of the Code, excluding the enormous body of

legislation contained in the liturgical books and the norms of other documents of the Holy

See.

The Code contains several canons which accord the faithful the right to partake in

the official liturgical celebrations of the Church. In the following four canons, we will see

implicit rights of the faithful to the Church’s official liturgical celebrations.

3.1.1 Right to the official liturgy of the Church

Canon 834 §1. The Church fulfills its sanctifying function in a particular

way through the sacred liturgy, which is an exercise of the priestly function

of Jesus Christ. In the sacred liturgy the sanctification of humanity is

signified through sensible signs and effected in a manner proper to each

sign. In the sacred liturgy, the whole public worship of God is carried out

by the Head and members of the mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

§2. Such worship takes place when it is carried out in the name of the

Church by persons legitimately designated and through acts approved by

the authority of the Church.424

This canon is the foundational canon on the liturgy located at the beginning of Book

IV. The first paragraph of the canon is a theological definition of the liturgy. The liturgical

action of the Church has its foundation in the priestly office of Jesus Christ. This public

worship of God is carried out by Jesus Christ the Head of the Body and all the members of

the mystical Body, the Church.425

424 Cf. CCEO, c. 668, §1; CIC, c. 834, §1. Munus sanctificandi Ecclesia peculiari modoadimplet per

sacram liturgiam, quae quidem habetur ut Iesu Christi muneris sacerdotalis exercitatio, in qua hominum

sanctificatio per signa sensibilia significatur ac modo singulis proprio efficitur, atque a mystic Iesu Christi

Corpore, Capite nempe et membris, integer cultus Dei publicus exercetur.

§2. Huiusmodi cultus tunc habetur, cum defertur nomine Ecclesiae a personis legitime deputatis et

per actus ab Ecclesiae auctoritateprobatos. 425 See TEJERO, Commentary on c. 834, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 361; cf. T.J. GREEN, “Selected

Issues in Divine Worship/Sacraments in the Latin and Eastern Codes: A Comparative Study,” in Studies in

Church Law, 4 (2008), 81-108; J.M. HUELS, Liturgy and Law, Liturgical Law in the System of Roman

Catholic Canon Law, Montréal, Gratianus, Wilson & Lafleur, 2006; A. REHRAUER, “Current Issues in

Liturgical and Sacramental Law,” in CLSA Proceedigs, 62 (2000), 254-262.


Paragraph two of the canon offers a juridical definition of the liturgy. It gives three

fundamental elements that make the sacred liturgy authentic. The first element is that

worship is offered in the name of the Church. This element is affirmed in the teaching of

the Vatican II stressing the fact that liturgical services are not private functions but are the

public worship of the Church (SC, no. 26).426 The second element is that the official sacred

liturgy of the Church is carried out by persons who are legitimately deputed to perform

those duties or actions.427 Lastly, liturgical acts are only those approved as such by the

competent authority of the Church.428 Again, this approval occurs in the manner

determined by law. Thus, we see in this second paragraph the three juridical elements that

form the root of the faithful’s right to the official liturgy of the Church: the public aspect

of the liturgy, that it is the act of the whole Church and not the property of any individual;

that those who carry out the liturgy are designated for their roles in accord with the norm

of law; and that the conduct of the liturgy must be carried out according to the lawfully

approved rites. In two canons, one on the sacraments (c. 846) and the other on the

sacramentals (c. 1167), we see an application of this right of the faithful to have the liturgy

celebrated as determined in the liturgical laws.

3.1.2 Right to proper liturgical observances and discipline

Canon 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved

by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is

to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.429

426 See SC, no. 26, in AAS, 56 (1964), 107, FLANNERY1, 10. 427 This deputatio at times is the divine law power of order, as is the case with the necessity of being

a priest in order to celebrate Holy Mass (c. 900). At other times, the determination of the Church must be

taken into account to be able to specify who is the person designated for a particular liturgical action (cf. cc.

132, 519, 530, 566, 882, 883-885, 887, 966-975, 1108-1114). 428 See TEJERO, Commentary on c. 834, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 361. 429 Cf. CCEO, c. 668, §2; 674; CIC, c. 846, §1. In sacramentis celebrandis fideliter serventur libri

liturgici a competent auctoritate probati; quapropter nemo in iisdem quidpiam proprio marte addat, demat aut

mutet.


This first paragraph of the canon is not merely an exhortation but commands the

faithful observance of the approved liturgical books in the celebration of the sacraments.

From this command flows the implied right of the faithful that their liturgical ministers in

fact faithfully observe the liturgical books approved by competent authority so that the

celebrations of the sacraments are truly the authentic liturgy of the Church. The canon is

an expression of the basic right of the faithful to worship God according to provisions of

their approved rite (c. 214).430 The second part of the paragraph is a quotation of the

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II: no one is to add, omit, or alter anything

in the liturgical books on one’s own authority (SC, no. 22, §3).431

3.1.3 Right to careful celebrations of sacramentals

Canon 1167 §2. In confecting or administering sacramentals, the rites and

formulas approved by the authority of the Church are to be observed

carefully.432

Sacramentals are the liturgical rites of the Church apart from the sacraments and

the liturgy of the hours.433 Unlike the sacraments which are instituted by Christ, the

sacramentals are established by the Church — in the Latin Church solely by the Apostolic

430 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 24; cf. T.J. PAPROCKI, “Why stick to the book?” in Homiletic and

Pastoral Review, 8-9 (2004), 8-15; G. READ, “The Roman Missal: The New General Instruction,” in CLSN,

125 (2001) 44-46. 431 See SC, no. 22, in AAS, 56 (1964), 106, FLANNERY1, 9-10. 432 Cf. CCEO, c. 867, §2; CIC, c. 1167, §2. In sacramentalibus conficiendis seu administrandis

accurate serventur ritus et formulae ab Ecclesiae auctoritate probata. 433 Sacramentals are similar to sacraments but different from them in both their origin and nature.

John Huels identifies five elements of a juridical definition of a sacramental: “(1) sacramentals are liturgical

rites; (2) the rites of the sacraments are not sacramentals; (3) the liturgy of the hours is not a sacramental; (4)

sacramentals (in the Latin Church) must be approved by the Holy See; and (5) sacramentals are celebrated

by designated ministers in accord with the law.” See J.M. HUELS, “A Juridical Notion of Sacramentals,” in

Studia canonica, 38 (2004), 345-368; and ID., “The Ministers of Sacramentals,” in The Jurist, 65 (2005),

338-385.

Many of the existing sacramentals are totally independent from sacraments, while other are closely

interrelated with them as a preparation of the matter or the subject, or also in fulfillment of the sacrament

itself. See M. DEL MAR MARTÍN, Commentary on Sacramentals cc. 1166-1172, in Exegetical Comm, vol.

3/2, 1634-1659. Huels proposes the classifying of sacramentals into two categories – those that have juridic

effects and those that do not. See J.M. HUELS, “A Juridical Notion of Sacramentals,” 356.


See (c. 1167, §1) and, in the Eastern Churches sui iuris, in accord with the particular law

of each Church (CCEO c. 867, §2).434 The second paragraph of c. 1167 is a particular

application with respect to sacramentals of the general rule established in c. 834, §2.

Ministers are obliged to observe carefully (accurate) the official rites and formulas of the

Church in confecting and administering all sacramentals. It follows that the faithful have a

right to celebrations of the sacramentals conducted accurately according to the approved

rites and formulas.435

3.1.4 Right to a properly celebrated funeral

Canon 1176 §2. Ecclesiastical funerals, by which the Church seeks spiritual

support for the deceased, honors their bodies, and at the same time brings

the solace of hope to the living, must be celebrated according to the norm

of the liturgical laws.436

Canon 1176, §2 determines the purpose of ecclesiastical funeral rites: suffrages or

spiritual assistance for the deceased, honor to their memory and body, and comfort for the

living. The canon makes an explicit affirmation of the requirement of fidelity to the norm

of the liturgical laws in the celebration of funeral rites,437 which in turn implies the right of

the faithful to properly celebrated funerals. The Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy,

issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, calls

for the greatest dignity and religious sensibility in conducting funerals. This refers

especially to the respect due to the body of the deceased, funeral furnishings which should

434 See DELMAR MARTÍN, Commentary on c. 1167, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1640. 435 Cf. HUELS, “The Ministers of the Sacramentals,” in The Jurist, 65 (2005), 337-384. 436 Cf. CCEO, c. 875; CIC, 1176, §2. Exequiae ecclesiasticae, quibus Ecclesia defunctis spiritualem

opem impetrat eorumque corpora honorat ac simul vivis spei solacium affert, celebrandae sunt ad normam

legum liturgicarum. 437 See J.L. SANTOS, Commentary on c. 1176, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1679; cf. V. ANTONIO,

“The Revised Order of Funerals: Theological and Pastoral Orientations,” in Immaculate Conception School

of Theology Journal, 10 (2008), 25-56.


be “decorous and free of all ostentation” and the proper use of liturgical signs (i.e., the

cross, the paschal candle, the holy water and the incense).438

3.2 Explicit Rights to the Sacraments

In this and the following section, the focus is on canons that express rights to the

sacraments.439 Excluded from the scope of our study are the canons on holy orders and

marriage. The canons on holy orders do not pertain to all the faithful but only to men who

are clerics or who want to be ordained. Likewise, the canons on marriage pertain to persons

who are married or want to be married. Moreover, many of these canons on marriage apply

to natural marriage as well as to the sacrament of marriage and thus are not restricted to

the christifideles. For example, c. 1058 says that all persons not prohibited by divine or

ecclesiastical laws may contract marriage (omnes possunt matrimonium contrahere).440

This is a natural right of the divine law applicable to all persons (omnes), not just an

ecclesiastical right of the christifideles. When both parties to the marriage are baptized,

however, the canon equally involves the right to the sacrament of marriage.

In the canons on the five sacraments under consideration, most of the rights are

implicit, but seven canons explicitly state rights. As noted in the Introduction, an explicit

right is indicated either when the law uses the word ius or an equivalent term. If that

438 CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Directory on

Popular Piety and Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines, 17 December 2001, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002,

181, no. 253. 439 The Code mentions sacraments in approximately 325 canons. The canons focus on juridical

essentials, on those things minimally necessary for sacramental administration and the requirements for

validity and liceity. They do not attempt to describe the fullness of sacramental celebrations, with active

participation, diverse ministerial roles, integrity of signs, and pastoral adaptations. One must look to the ritual

books for what is normal and desirable in sacramental worship. 440 See T.P. DOYLE, Commentary on c. 1058, in CLSA Comm1, 743; Cf. CCEO, c. 778; CIC c. 1058.

Omnes possunt matrimonium contrahere, qui iure non prohibentur.


equivalent term can be substituted by the word ius without changing the meaning of the

canon, the right in question is explicit.

Canon 865 §2 states: “An adult in danger of death may be baptized if, having some

knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all

the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the

Christian religion.”441 The person must: a) possess “some” knowledge of the principal

truths of the faith, not the “sufficient” knowledge called for in normal situations;

b) manifest the will to be baptized “in any way,” even only implicitly; and c) promise to

fulfill the mandates of the Christian religion (provided the person recovers). The subject of

the canon is the minister of baptism who must determine whether the person in question

fulfills these minimal conditions.442 If the conditions are met, the adult has the right to be

baptized (baptizari potest), and the minister is obliged to celebrate it. Although not yet a

christifidelis prior to the baptism, the person has this right by the divine law since baptism

is necessary for salvation.

Canon 912 says that any baptized person not prohibited by law may and must be

admitted to Holy Communion.443 Any baptized person, even non-Catholic, who is not

prohibited by law, has the right (admitti potest) to receive the Holy Eucharist and the

minister has the corresponding duty (admitti debet) to give it to the faithful who rightfully

request it. The canon has a condition worded in the negative – any baptized person who is

441 Cf. CCEO, c. 682, §2; CIC, c. 865, §2. Adultus, qui in periculo mortis versatur, baptizari potest

si, aliquam de praecipuis fidei veritatibus cognitionem habens, quovis modo intentionem suam baptismum

recipiendi manifestaverit et promittat se christianae religionis mandata esse servaturum. 442 The intention to be baptized may be habitual (once given and not withdrawn). Some intention

must be present; if this intention is ambiguous, baptism may be conditional. See K.T. HART, Commentary on

c. 865, in CLSA Comm2, 1053. 443 Cf. CIC, c. 912. Quilibet baptizatus, qui iure non prohibeatur, admitti potest et debet ad sacram

communionem.


not prohibited (non prohibeatur) by law. This recalls the general norm of c. 18 on the strict

interpretation of restrictions on the free exercise of rights. The minister may refuse Holy

Communion only when there is an explicit basis in the law for such denial, and the laws in

question are subject to a strict interpretation.444

A much discussed and debated canon is a good example of when such strict

interpretation is required. Canon 915 states: “Those who have been excommunicated or

interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately

persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”445 The

canon first deals with the denial of Holy Communion in the external forum to those

laboring under the penalty of imposed or declared excommunication or interdict. It then

includes in this prohibition those who obstinately persevere in manifest, grave sin. The

canon is directed to ministers of the Eucharist, both ordinary and extraordinary,446 whose

duty is not to admit (ne admittantur)447 those persons mentioned in the canon to the

444 See I. GRAMUNT, Commentary on c. 912, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 607. The phrase, “who

is not prohibited by law,” is a specific application of c. 843, §1. Canonical discipline provides several contexts

when a baptized person may be forbidden by law from receiving Holy Communion. See for instance: (a)

penal prohibitions due to excommunication (c. 1331, §1, 2º) and interdict (c. 1332); (b) persons not properly

disposed or prepared (cc. 913, §1; 915); and (c) ecumenical hospitality (c. 844 §§ 3-4); cf. P.J. TRAVERS,

“Reception of the Holy Eucharist by Catholics attempting Remarriage after Divorce and the 1983 Code of

Canon Law,” in The Jurist, 55 (1995), 187-217. 445 Cf. CCEO, c. 712; CIC, c. 915. Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur excommunicati et

interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae alii que in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate

perseverantes.

Cf. R.L. BURKE, “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those

Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin,” in Periodica, 96 (2007), 3-58; see alsoW. KOWAL, “The

Non-Admission of the Divorced and Remarried Persons to Holy Communion:Canon 915 Revisited,”

in Studia canonica, 49 (2015), 411–441; J. WERCKMEISTER, “The Admission to the Sacraments of Divorcees

Who Have Remarried and the Interpretation of Canon 915,” in Revue de Droit Canonique, 51 (2001), 373-

399; J.J. MYERS, “Divorce, Remarriage, and Reception of the Holy Eucharist,” in The Jurist, 57 (1997), 484-

516; I. GRAMUNT, “Non-Admission to Holy Communion: The Interpretation of Canon 915 (CIC),” in Studia

canonica, 35 (2001), 175-190. 446 See c. 910 on the ordinary minister (bishop, priest, and deacon) and the extraordinary minister

(acolyte and those foreseen in c. 230, §3 when their services are needed). 447 See PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Declaration concerning the admission to

Holy Communion of the faithful who are divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, in Communicationes, 32

(2000), 159-162, English translation in Origins, 30 (2000-2001), 174-175 (=PCLT, Declaration); see J.


participation in the blessed Eucharist. Therefore, since it concerns the restriction of the

right to the Eucharist, it is to be interpreted strictly (c. 18). While the first reason for denial

is an objective fact (excommunication or interdict inflicted or declared), the second reason

calls for the minister or ecclesiastical authority to make a judgment about the situation and

act accordingly.448 A strict interpretation means, accordingly, that all the conditions of the

law must be verified: the person in question is “obstinately persevering” in a “sin” that is

both “manifest” and “grave.” If every one of these conditions is not demonstrated or is

doubtful, the faithful in question has the right to receive Holy Communion (c. 912).

Canon 917 has an explicit right pertaining to a faithful who wishes to receive the

Lord’s Body and Blood a second time on the same day, provided that the second time is

during the celebration of the Eucharist.449 This canon was subject to an authentic

RATZINGER, Letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick concerning Catholics in Political Life,” in Origins, 34

(2004-2005), 134. As Cardinal Burke notes, this principle “makes clear the application of can. 915 to the

case of a Catholic politician who persists in publicly supporting legislation in grave violation of the natural

law. It also provides the pastoral instruction regarding the procedure to be followed in observing the norm of

the law in the matter.” See BURKE, “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion

to those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin,” in Periodica, 96 (2007), 37. See also

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to Bishops concerning the Reception of Holy

Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, no. 6, 14 September 1994, in AAS, 86

(1994), 974-979, English translation in Origins, 24 (1994-1995), 337-341. 448 Ignatius Gramunt explains that it should not be concluded to mean that the decision “not to admit”

implies an act of jurisdiction. The bishop and the parochus celebrating the Eucharist within their jurisdiction

may indeed reach that decision by virtue of the juridical power they hold over the congregation, but for those

other ministers who lack jurisdiction (including a bishop or a priest with no power of governance over that

particular congregation), the faculty to administer Communion is only a liturgical function and, by not

admitting, they are simply applying to themselves the prohibition to “not admit” to the sacrament a person

whom the law excludes. See GRAMUNT, Commentary on c. 915, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 615. 449 Doubt: Whether, according to canon 917, one who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist

may receive it on the same day only a second time, or as often as one participates in the celebration of the

Eucharist. Response: Affirmative to the first; negative to the second. In AAS, 76 (1984), 74, Eng. translation

in CCLA, 1629.

Interestingly, when this canon was being drafted in 1978, “practically all” the consultors favored

the right of a properly disposed person to receive Holy Communion not just a second time but as often as he

or she participates in the celebration of Mass. See Communicationes, 13 (1981), 414-415.


interpretation.450 In saying that a person may receive (potest suscipere) a second time, the

law accords the right to do so.

Canon 923 says that, without prejudice to c. 844, the Christian faithful may

participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice and receive Holy Communion in any Catholic rite

i.e., in any Church sui iuris in communion with the Apostolic See. In saying that the faithful

may (possunt) participate and receive, the canon explicitly acknowledges the right of the

faithful to inter-ecclesial participation in the Eucharist and reception of Holy Communion.

The reference to c. 844 highlights the fact that the right given in this canon is not applicable

to and should not be confused with the norms on sacramental sharing (communicatio in

sacris) with baptized non-Catholics.451

Canon 991, using the words cuivis christifideli integrum est, speaks of the freedom

of the faithful to confess their sins to a legitimately approved confessor of their choice,

even to one of another rite. The explicit character of this right is well expressed in the

Spanish translation of integrum est by the words tiene derecho452 and in Italian by the

words è diritto,453 both which mean “have the right.”454

450 Cf. CIC, c.917. Qui sanctissimam Eucharistiam iam recepit, potest eam iterum eadem die

susciperesolum modo intra eucharisticam celebrationem cui participat, salvo praescripto can. 921, §2. 451 See GRAMUNT, Commentary on c. 923, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 635; cf. H. PREE,

“Questioni interrituali e interecclesiali nell’amministrazione dei sacramenti,” in Folia Theologica et

Canonica, 17 (2014), 213-230; A. MCGRATH, “Communicatio in Sacris: An Effort to Express the Unity of

Christians or Simply an Exercise in Politeness?,” in CLSA Proceedings, 63 (2001), 173-214. 452 Código de Derecho Canónico, Edición bilinguë anotada, a cargo del INSTITUTO MARTÍN DE

AZPILCUETA, 4a ed., Ediciones Universidad De Navarra, Pamplona, 1987. See also A. GOOCH, Cassell’s

Spanish-English Dictionary, London, Cassell Ltd., 1980. 453 Codice di Diritto Canonico, Testo ufficiale e versione italiana, terza edizione riveduta, corretta

e aumentata, Rome, 1997. See also I. MAY, Italian-English Dictionary, New York, Saphrograph Corp., 1973. 454 Cf. CIC, c. 991. Cuivis christifideli integrum est confessario legitime approbato etiam alius ritus,

cui maluerit, peccata confiteri.

A member of the faithful has freedom of choice when selecting a confessor and cannot be compelled

in any fashion in his or her choice. See cc. 240, §1 and 630, §1 for an application of this norm in seminaries

and religious communities. Canon 844, §2 covers the special circumstances when a Catholic could lawfully

approach a non-Catholic priest whose Church is acknowledged to have a valid sacrament of penance. See

F.R. MCMANUS, “Commentary on c. 991,” in CLSA Comm1, 697; J. ABBASS, “CCEO Canon 1 and

Absolving Eastern Catholics in the Latin Church,” in Studia canonica, 46 (2012), 75-96.


Canon 994 has an explicit right to gain partial and plenary indulgences, using the

words quivis fidelis potest.455 “Any member of the faithful may gain partial or plenary

indulgences for oneself or apply them to the dead by way of suffrage.”456 The legislator

could equally have said that any faithful has the right to obtain an indulgence.

In addition to these explicit rights, twelve canons have implicit rights to the

sacraments. Here we will identify the implicit rights specific to each sacrament after first

considering two canons pertaining to all the sacraments.

3.3 Implicit Rights to the Sacraments

A number of canons in Book IV of the Code implicitly acknowledge rights to the

sacraments. The first of these are in cc. 843 and 848, which give general rules pertaining

to all the sacraments. Thereafter, we find implicit rights for the sacraments of baptism,

confirmation, Eucharist, penance, and anointing of the sick.

3.3.1 General rules on the right to the sacraments

Canon 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who

seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited

by law from receiving them.457

455 A plenary indulgence remits all temporal punishment due for sins. As Peters notes: “God alone

knows exactly how much punishment, in absolute terms, would have been due for the forgiven sins of a

specific person, but whatever the amount of that punishment was, God accepts the indulgence as payment in

full, or, more precisely, he accepts the application of the infinite merits of Christ from the treasury of the

Church to pay the debt of punishment of the forgiven sinner who obtains a plenary indulgence.” For a more

detailed study, see E. PETERS, A Modern Guide to Indulgences, Chicago, Hillenbrand Books, 2008. 456 Cf. CIC, c. 994. Quivis fidelis potest indulgentias sive partiales sive plenarias, autsibi ipsilucrari,

aut defunctis applicare ad modum suffragii.

The Code does not deal explicitly with the question of whether indulgences can be applied to other

living persons besides oneself, though it can be claimed the canon implicitly excludes this possibility. 457 Cf. CCEO, c. 381, §2; CIC, c. 843, §1. Ministri sacri denegare non possunt sacramenta iis qui

opportune eadem petant, rite sint dispositi, nec iure ab iis recipiendis prohibeantur.


This canon has an implicit right to the sacraments. The canon is worded negatively

(Ministri sacri denegare non possunt), but it implies a positive right to the sacraments. It

correlates with c. 213 which acknowledges the faithful’s right to receive the spiritual goods

of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments. The canon also has an

implicit obligation pertaining to the ordained ministers. They are obliged to administer the

sacraments to the faithful as long as they ask for them at the appropriate time, are properly

disposed, and are not barred by law.458

Right not to be charged beyond the fixed offering for sacraments

Canon 848. The minister is to seek nothing for the administration of the

sacraments beyond the offerings defined by competent authority, always

taking care that the needy are not deprived of the assistance of the

sacraments because of poverty.459

The canon pertains to the offerings that are usually requested from the faithful on

the occasion of the administration of certain sacraments.460 In saying that the minister

should not seek any more than the standard offering, the canon shows a concern for the

reverence due to sacred things, especially the sacraments, and the need to avoid even the

appearance of profit seeking from their celebration. Moreover, the concern is not just to

protect the dignity and sacredness of the sacraments but also the rights of those to whom

they are administered. The canon exhorts the ministers not to seek anything beyond the

fixed offering established by the competent authority (cf. c. 1264, 2º). It is also concerned

that ministers not deny the sacraments to those who are not able to give the required

offerings without sacrifice. These requirements yield two implicit rights: the right not to

458 See T.J. MARTÍN DE AGAR, Commentary on c. 843, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 404. 459 Cf. CIC, c. 848. Minister, praeter oblationes a competenti auctoritate definitas, pro

sacramentorum administratione nihil petat, cauto semper ne egentes priventur auxilio sacramentorum ratione

paupertatis. 460 See MARTÍN DE AGAR, Commentary on c. 848, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 425.


be charged a higher offering than that established by the competent authority and the right

of the poor not to be deprived of a sacrament even without furnishing the standard offering.

Nevertheless, the canon in no way prohibits greater offerings or gifts that are voluntary.461

3.3.2 Baptism

Canon 859. If because of distance or other circumstances the one to be

baptized cannot go or be brought to the parish church or to the other church

or oratory mentioned in can. 858, §2 without grave inconvenience, baptism

can and must be conferred in another nearer church or oratory, or even in

another fitting place.462

The canon gives an implicit right to have baptism celebrated apart from the ordinary

place of baptism, which is the parish church unless a just cause suggests otherwise (c. 857,

§2) or unless the local ordinary has permitted or ordered that there be a baptismal font in

another church or oratory within the parish boundaries (c. 858, §2). The right only exists

when the person to be baptized cannot, without grave inconvenience, go or be brought to

the usual place of baptism in the parish. In this situation, baptism can and must be conferred

in another nearer church or oratory, or even another fitting place. The use of the word “can”

(potest) indicates that it is licit to celebrate baptism in any other location apart from the

parish church in a case of grave inconvenience; the word “must” (debet) stresses the fact

that the celebration of baptism itself is more important than the place of celebration.463 It

also implies a duty on the part of the pastor to arrange for such a baptism, which in turn

461 See MCMANUS, “Commentary on c. 848,” in CLSA Comm2, 1031. 462 Cf. CCEO, c. 687, §1 merely states that ordinarily baptism is administered in a parish church

with due regard for legitimate customs, leaving a certain openness as to the church where a baptism might

take place.

CIC, c. 859. Si ad ecclesiam paroecialem aut ad aliam ecclesiam vel oratorium, de quo in can. 858,

§2, baptizandus, propter locorum distantiam aliave adiuncta, sine gravi incommodo accedere vel transferri

nequeat, baptismus conferri potest et debet in alia propinquiore ecclesia vel oratorio, aut etiam alio in loco

decenti. 463 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 859, in CLSA Comm2, 1048; cf. J. CHIRAMEL, “Sacraments

of Initiation in the Latin and Eastern Codes: a Comparative Study,” in Studies in Church Law, 3 (2007), 327-

350.


implies the right of the faithful to have their baptism outside the parish church when there

exists the grave inconvenience as indicated in the canon.

3.3.3 Confirmation

Three canons have implicit rights to the sacrament of confirmation (apart from

danger of death which is treated below). These have to do with the right to the sacrament

implied in the ministers’ obligations to celebrate it, the right of adults to full sacramental

initiation, and the right to confirmation at the appropriate age.

Right to confirmation implied in ministers’ obligations

Canon 885 §1. The diocesan bishop is obliged to take care that the

sacrament of confirmation is conferred on subjects who properly and

reasonably seek it.

§2. A presbyter who possesses this faculty must use it for the sake of those

in whose favor the faculty was granted.464

In paragraph one of the canon, the diocesan bishop is explicitly mentioned and is

said to be bound by legal obligation (obligation tenetur) to see that the sacrament of

confirmation is administered to his subjects who duly and responsibly request it. This

obligation gives rise to the implicit right of the faithful to receive the sacrament whenever

they properly and reasonably request it.

The second paragraph of the canon speaks about the strong duty of the presbyter

who has the faculty to confirm: he must use it (utidebet) on behalf of those for whom the

faculty was granted. This strong obligation implies and equally strong right of the faithful

to receive the sacrament. The faculty of a presbyter to confirm is acquired by law or

delegation. Presbyters who have the faculty by law are enumerated in c. 883. A presbyter

464 Cf. cc. 213; 381, §1, 835, §1 and 882; CIC, c. 885, §1. Episcopus dioecesanus obligatione tenetur

curandi ut sacramentum confirmationis subditis rite et rationabiliter petentibus conferatur.

§2. Presbyter, qui hac facultate gaudet, eadem uti debet erga eos in quorum favorem facultas

concessa est.


may also have the delegated faculty to confirm, whether by general or special delegation.

The faculty can validly be granted only by the diocesan bishop (c. 884, §1) or by someone

to whom the bishop has delegated the power to grant the faculty.465

Right of adults to be baptized and confirmed at the same time

Canon 866. Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is

baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate

in the Eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion.466

This canon stresses that the newly baptized is to be “confirmed immediately” after

baptism, is to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist, and is to receive communion.

There is one exception: unless there is a “grave reason” to the contrary which prevents it

(gravisobstet ratio). This canon is a perfect example of the unity that exists among the three

sacraments of Christian initiation and which is reflected in c. 883.467 The canon implicitly

imposes an obligation on the pastor and other ministers to administer all three sacraments

of initiation in the same rite. This obligation is explicitly reinforced with regard to

confirmation in c. 885, §2: “A presbyter who possesses this faculty [to confirm] must use

it for the sake of those in whose favor the faculty was granted.” Consequently, there is an

implicit right of the adult faithful who are newly baptized also to complete their

sacramental initiation in the same rite.

This canon equally applies to all minors who have attained the use of reason (cf. c.

852, §1). The mere fact that children baptized in infancy are confirmed in a particular place

only when they are older than seven does not justify postponing confirmation for children

465 Cf. G. READ, “Age of Confirmation. Limitations on the Power of the Bishop,” in CLSGBI

Newsletter, 125 (2001), 107-110.ID., “Pastoral Policies on the Administration of the Sacraments,” in CLSGBI

Newsletter, 125 (2001), 107-110; W.J. LEVADA, “Reflections on the Age of Confirmation,” in Theological

Studies, 57 (1996), 302-312. 466 Cf. CIC, c. 866. Adultus qui baptizatur, nisi gravis obstet ratio, statim post baptismum

confirmetur atque celebrationem eucharisticam, communionem etiam recipiendo, participet. 467 See M. BLANCO, Commentary on c. 866, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 463.


of a younger age when they are baptized or received into the Church.468 One sees this

interpretation also in particular law, for example, in that of the conference of bishops of

the USA which explicitly states that children of catechetical age “should receive the

sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist at the Easter Vigil, together with the

older catechumens.”469

Right to be confirmed at the appropriate age

Canon 891. The sacrament of confirmation is to be conferred on the faithful

at about the age of discretion unless the conference of bishops has

determined another age, or there is danger of death, or in the judgment of

the minister a grave cause suggests otherwise.470

The age of confirmation, which admits of wide variety in practice, is the subject of

this norm. The canon is directed to the ministers of confirmation and obligates them to

ensure that the faithful are not deprived of their right to the sacrament of confirmation when

they are eligible to receive it.471 As a basic rule, confirmation is to be conferred (conferatur)

at about the age of discretion, which is seven years. In keeping with Catholic theology and

liturgical norms, confirmation is the second sacrament of Christian initiation and so is

468 “There is a firm legal obligation binding the minister to confirm the adults and children of

catechetical age who are baptized or received into the Church, even though they may be below the age that

children baptized in infancy normally confirmed in that locale […] In sum, confirmation and first communion

may not licitly be delayed following the baptism of anyone who is seven years or older and has the use of

reason. Likewise, confirmation and first communion cannot licitly be delayed in case of someone baptized

in a non-Catholic ecclesial community and who is being received into full communion. In either case, the

sacraments of confirmation and Eucharist must be administered in the course of the celebration of initiation

or reception. The only exception permitted in the law is a case where there is a serious reason for delay.” See

J.M. HUELS, The Catechumenate and the Law: A Pastoral and Canonical Commentary for the Church in the

United States, Chicago, Liturgical Training Publications, 1994, 32-33. 469 See NCCB, National Statutes for the Catechumenate, no. 14, 11 November 1986. The Statutes

are appended to all editions of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults which are published for use in the

dioceses of the USA. 470 Cf. CCEO, c. 695, §1; CIC, c. 891. Sacramentum confirmationis conferatur fidelibus circa

aetatem discretionis, nisi Episcoporum conferentia aliam aetatem determinaverit, aut adsit periculum mortis

vel, de iudicio ministri, gravis causa aliud suadeat. 471 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 88; cf. READ, “Age of Confirmation. Limitations on the Power of

the Bishop,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 125 (2001), 107-110.


optimally conferred before first Communion. In danger of death, confirmation must be

administered even to infants, as discussed below. Also, the minister of the sacrament may

admit a child younger than the standard age if a grave cause exists. In ordinary

circumstances, the delay of the sacrament until the age of discretion or other age established

in particular law allows for suitable preparation for confirmation (cf. c. 890).

3.3.4 Eucharist

Two canons address the right to the Eucharist (apart from the danger of death

situation). The first of these is an implicit right of the faithful to have limits on the

concelebration of Mass. The second is an implicit right to receive Holy Communion

outside Mass for a just cause.

Rights concerning concelebrated Masses

Canon 902. Unless the welfare of the Christian faithful requires or suggests

otherwise, priests can concelebrate the Eucharist. They are completely free

to celebrate the Eucharist individually, however, but not while a

concelebration is taking place in the same Church or oratory.472

This canon addresses concelebration by priests at the Eucharist. It is a permissive

law allowing priests to concelebrate or celebrate individually. They may not concelebrate,

however, when “the welfare of the Christian faithful requires or suggests otherwise.” This

occurs especially at large celebrations with many people and priests present, a concern

addressed in a document of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the

Sacraments.473 The welfare of the people cannot be compromised at the cost of a

472 Cf. CCEO, c. 701; CIC, c. 902. Nisi utilitas christifidelium aliud requirat aut suadeat, sacerdotes

Eucharistiam concelebrare possunt, integra tamen pro singulis libertate manente Eucharistiam individuali

modo celebrandi, non vero eo tempore, quo in eadem ecclesia aut oratorio concelebratio habetur. 473 See CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Guide for

Large-Scale Celebrations, 13 June 2014, prot. no. 371/14, in USCCB Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter,

52 (March-April 2016), 9-16.


concelebration by priests as would happen, for example, if the assembly’s view of the altar

is concealed by the concelebrants standing in the front pews, or Mass is unduly protracted

by their reception of Communion. In such situations, pastoral needs require or suggest that

there be a limit on the number of concelebrants or that the Mass not be concelebrated.

Implicit in this canon, therefore, is the right of the faithful to have their own welfare

considered in the planning for concelebrated Masses so that they may have a fitting

celebration of the Eucharist as envisioned by the Second Vatican Council and the revised

Order of Mass.474

Right to receive Holy Communion outside Mass for a just cause

Canon 918. It is highly recommended that the faithful receive Holy

Communion during the Eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be

administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just

cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.475

This canon is about the reception of the Holy Communion within and outside the

Mass. In saying that Communion should be administered (administretur), the canon

implicitly imposes a duty on the ministers of the Eucharist to give Holy Communion to the

faithful not only during the celebration of Mass but also outside it when they request it for

a just cause. This duty in turn implies the right of the faithful regarding the reception of the

Holy Communion outside of the Mass. This right is limited to those who have a just cause,

typically the inability to participate in the Mass due to illness or old age or the absence of

a priest who can celebrate the Eucharist (c. 528 § 2).476

474 See J.M. HUELS, Commentary on c. 902, in CLSA Comm2, 1098; cf. J. ABBASS., “The Eucharist:

A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes,” in Studies in Church Law, 7 (2011), 47-84. 475 Cf. CCEO, c. 713, §1; CIC, c. 918. Maxime commendatur ut fideles in ipsa eucharistica

celebratione sacram communionem recipiant; ipsis tamen iusta de causa petentibus extra Missam ministretur,

servatis liturgicis ritibus. 476 See GRAMUNT, Commentary on c. 918, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 625; cf. G. READ,

“Receiving Communion Worthily,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 154 (2008), 61-64; ID., “Worship of the Eucharist

outside Mass,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 161 (2010), 26-29.


3.3.5 Penance

Six canons have implicit rights to the sacrament of penance (apart from danger of

death). These have to do with the place for hearing confessions, the right to absolution, the

right to have the sacramental seal protected, the right to absolute confidentiality concerning

matters learned from a penitent, the right of access to the sacrament, and the right to use an

interpreter.

The right to penance outside a sacred place

Canon 964 §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional

without a just cause.477

The first paragraph of this canon says that the proper place to hear confessions is a

church or an oratory. The second canon calls on the conference of bishops to make

particular law regarding the confession, but ensuring “that there are always confessionals

with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor.” This third paragraph is an

exception, allowing for the sacrament to be celebrated outside of a confessional in a church

or an oratory. Confession may take place elsewhere for a just cause: in homes or hospitals

or other places where the hearing of confession is reasonably requested.478 The obligation

to hear confessions in a confessional implies the right of penitents to confess their sins

without revealing their identity.479 There is, moreover, a right of the faithful to confess their

sins outside a confessional when they have a just cause, but this right is contingent. For it

is the confessor, not the penitent, who determines whether the cause is just. This would

include factors such as the suitability of the place, the fear of being overheard, danger of

477 Cf. CIC, c. 964, §3. Confessiones extra sedem confessionalem ne excipiantur, nisi iusta de causa. 478 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 964, in CLSA Comm2, 1151; cf. J. ABBASS, “Penance: A

Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes,” in Studia canonica, 45 (2011), 293-328; P. COGAN,

“The Sacrament of Reconciliation: Issues, Praxis and the Future,” in CLSA Proceedings, 66 (2004), 81-92. 479 See J.W.H. STETSON, Commentary on c. 964, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 770.


abuse, inconvenience, scrupulosity, and so forth, any of which may justify the denial of a

request for the sacrament outside a sacred place. In doubt about the adequacy of the cause,

the confessor should admit the penitent to the sacrament.

Right to absolution

Canon 980. If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the

penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither

refused nor deferred.480

This canon affirms that, if the confessor has no reason for doubting the penitent’s

disposition, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred. Behind the negative wording

of the canon (absolutio ne denegetur nec differatur) is the implicit right to the sacrament.

Any penitent who is disposed (cc. 987-988) and who lacks any penal impediment has the

right to receive the absolution from a priest who has the faculty to hear confessions (cf. cc.

213, 841 and 843 §1).

Right to the inviolability of the sacramental seal

Canon 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is absolutely

forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any

manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have

knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.481

The first paragraph of the canon deals with the sacramental seal of confession. The

choice of the words “absolutely forbidden” (nefas est) by the legislator demonstrates the

strong sense of protection and dignity attached to the sacramental seal. The inviolability of

the confessional seal is more than a matter of ecclesiastical law but has its origin in the

480 Cf. CIC, c. 980. Si confessario dubium non est de paenitentis dispositione et hic absolutionem

petat, absolutio ne denegetur nec differatur. 481 Cf. CCEO, c. 733; CIC, c. 983, §1. Sacramentale sigillum inviolabile est; quare nefas est

confessario verbis vel alio quovis et quavis modo de causa aliquatenus prodere paenitentem.

§ 2. Obligatione secretum servandi tenentur quoque interpres, si detur, necnon omnes alii ad quos

ex confessione notitia peccatorum quoquo modo pervenerit.


divine law.482 This obligation of the sacramental seal also reinforces the right of every

individual to privacy as stipulated in c. 220. The obligation of maintaining the sacramental

seal is binding on all confessors without exception.483 The prohibition against betraying a

penitent applies to any violation of the seal, whether direct or indirect.484

The second paragraph of the canon deals with the obligation to observe secrecy.

This is a most grave obligation which also binds the interpreter and all other persons who

may in any way have knowledge of the information received during confessions.485 This

obligation, like that of the sacramental seal, has its basis in the natural law regarding a

person’s right to privacy (c.220).486 The rationale for this obligation is the protection of the

dignity of the sacraments and the rights of the faithful.487

482 See R.T. MORIARITY, “Violation of the Confessional Seal and the Associated Penalties,” in The

Jurist, 58 (1998), 153-154 (=MORIARITY, “Violation of the Confessional Seal”).Cf. G.J. ZUBACZ, The Seal

of Confession and Canadian Law, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, 2009. 483 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 273. 484 A direct violation of the seal consists in revealing both the identity of the penitent and the sin

confessed. A direct violation can occur not only by stating the penitent’s name and the sin but also by

revealing circumstances by which this could be known. An example of direct violation of the seal would be

if the pastor of a small parish reports to another person from the same parish that “a woman confessed to him

that she was living with a man without benefit of matrimony,” and it well known in the town who this woman

is.

An indirect violation occurs when, from the things the confessor says or does, there arises a danger

that others will come to know a sin confessed and the identity of the penitent. For example, a priest says that,

in confession, an accountant (no name mentioned) admitted he had embezzled money from a parish. This is

an indirect violation, because the danger exists that the identity of the sinner could be known if he were to be

arrested for embezzlement from a parish. For a helpful overview on both direct and indirect violations and

the sacrament itself, see J.M. HUELS, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic

Ministry, 5th rev. ed., Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2016, 144. See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 272-276. 485 See F. LOZA, Commentary on c. 983, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 821; cf. K. MARTENS,

“Secrecy in Catholicism,” in Revue de droit canonique, 52 (2002), 259-274. 486 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 277. 487 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 983, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 823; cf., G READ, “The Integrity

of the Sacrament of Penance,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 129 (2002), 40-42.


Right to absolute secrecy of confession

Canon 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge

acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any

danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for

external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in

confession at any time.488

The first paragraph of the canon is a strong prohibition (omnino prohibetur) against

using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent. The subject of

the prohibition is the confessor. The prohibited object or matter is “using knowledge

acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent.” Even if there is no danger of

breaking the seal, it is still forbidden for the confessor to use such knowledge from the

confession.489

The second paragraph treats the prohibition against the use of knowledge about sins

gained through confession. The concern of this canon is persons in authority who in

anyway could make use of such knowledge in the external forum.490 It applies to any

knowledge about a sin, whether deleterious or advantageous to the penitent.491

In this canon, the legislator emphasizes the distinction and separation between the

internal forum, the forum of conscience, and the external forum, the forum of government

and the public life of the Church. This separation of the fora is guaranteed by law to the

faithful and, indeed, is an important right, albeit implicit. It helps to avoid any suspicion

488 Cf. CCEO, c. 734, §1-2; CIC, c. 984, §1. Omnino confessario prohibetur scientiae ex confessione

acquisitae usus cum paenitentis gravamine, etiam quovis revelationis periculo excluso.

§2. Qui in auctoritate est constitutus, notitia quam de peccatis in confessione quovis tempore excepta

habuerit, ad exteriorem gubernationem nullo modo uti potest. 489 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 278. 490 All those “who are in authority are those who exercise offices of governance: Ordinaries (cc. 134,

§1, 295, §1, 368, 372, §2, 427), superiors (cc. 596, 620, 622), parish priests (c. 519) and their equivalents,

rector of seminaries (cc. 260, 262), and rectors of churches (cc. 556, 562). These authorities are obligated by

the prohibition even if they come into office after the confessions have been made (quovis tempore). 491 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 984, in CLSA Comm2, 1165.


that those in authority or governance may be affected by what they come to know in the

sacrament of penance.492 Clearly, the faithful have the right to absolute secrecy concerning

what is said in sacramental confession.

Right to access the sacrament of penance

Canon 986 §1. All to whom the care of souls has been entrusted in virtue

of some function are obliged to make provision so that the confessions of

the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably seek to be

heard and that they have the opportunity to approach individual confession

on days and at times established for their convenience.493

The first paragraph of the canon is an application to penance of the right to the

sacraments (cc. 213, 843, §3).494 Since the faithful have a right to the sacrament, the law

here establishes an obligation on those entrusted with the care of souls to make provision

for the celebration of the sacrament on a regular basis. This is an obligation of justice

binding all to whom the care of souls is committed.495 These pastores animarum must

provide the opportunity for confessions: (a) anytime when reasonably requested (and thus,

whenever a penitent’s conscience feels burdened, a confessor should presume that a request

for the sacrament is reasonable); and (b) at fixed days and times to suit the convenience of

the faithful.496

Right to an interpreter

492 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 984, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 826. 493 Cf. CCEO, c. 735; CIC, c. 986, §1. Omnis cui animarum cura vi muneris est demandata,

obligatione tenetur providendi ut audiantur confessiones fidelium sibi commissorum, qui rationabiliter audiri

petant, utque iisdem opportunitas praebeatur ad confessionem individualem, diebus ac horis in eorum

commodum statutis, accedendi. 494 See E. GARCIA, “Priestly Obligation to Hear Confessions,” in Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipinas,

63 (1987), 610-618 (=GARCIA, “Priestly Obligation to Hear Confessions”). 495 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 986, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 830. 496 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 986, in CLSA Comm2, 1166.


Canon 990 – No one is prohibited from confessing through an interpreter as long

as abuses and scandals are avoided and without prejudice to the prescript of can.

983, §2.497

This canon speaks about the service of an interpreter in the case of a confessor who

does not know the penitent’s language or know it well. The choice always remains that of

the penitent but, if he or she is unwilling to use an interpreter, the integral confession of

sins in accord with c. 960 would probably be morally impossible. That being said, the

faithful have an implicit right to use an interpreter if needed, a right which enables them to

access the sacrament. Although the canon is worded negatively (nemo prohibetur

quominus per interpretem confiteatur), a positive right is implied. The right is conditioned

in that an interpreter is allowed only if abuse and scandal are avoided, especially in regard

to sacramental confidentiality. The mention of c. 983, §2 is a reminder that the interpreter

is bound by the sacramental secret.498

3.4 Rights to the Sacraments in Danger of Death

This section treats the legislation of the Code pertaining to the right to the

sacraments of those who are in danger of death (periculum mortis). The legislator

establishes certain provisions in the law for which the faithful may benefit from the

spiritual goods of the Church in a time of danger. Priests and others are obliged to

administer the sacraments to persons in danger of death, and this implies a right of such

persons to receive them. In the case of baptism and penance, this duty and right are of the

497 Cf. CIC, c. 990. Nemo prohibetur quominus per interpretem confiteatur, vitatis quidem abusibus

et scandalis atque firmo praescripto can. 983, § 2. 498 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 984, in CLSA Comm2, 1172.


divine law, as these sacraments are considered necessary for salvation. We will treat twelve

canons which implicitly refer to the right to the sacraments of those in danger of death.

3.4.1 Sacramental sharing (communicatio in sacris)

Canon 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the

diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges

it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other

Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who

cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on

their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to

these sacraments and are properly disposed.499

Paragraph four of c. 844 gives an implicit right to Christians who are not in full

communion with the Catholic Church and who are in danger of death. Although the canon

does not explicitly impose a duty on the Catholic minister to administer the sacraments to

them, this is unnecessary because it is not a matter of merely ecclesiastical law with respect

to the sacrament of penance for those in a state of grave sin. The minister is thus implicitly

obliged by the divine law.

There are several conditions that must be fulfilled before the right of the faithful

can be exercised. The first is that they truly are Christian faithful, that is, validly baptized.

The second is that they are in danger of death or have some other serious need determined

in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the bishops’ conference,500 although our concern

here is only with the danger of death. The remaining conditions of the law are: a) inability

to approach their own minister; b) a voluntary request by the recipient; c) a manifestation

499 Cf. CCEO, c. 671, §4; CIC, c. 844, §4. Si adsit periculum mortis aut, iudicio Episcopi dioecesani

aut Episcoporum conferentiae, alia urgeat gravis necessitas, ministri catholici licite eadem sacramenta

administrant ceteris quoque christianis plenam communionem cum Ecclesia non habentibus, qui ad suae

communitatis ministrum accedere nequeant atque sponte id petant, dummodo quoad eadem sacramenta fidem

catholicam manifestent et rite sint dispositi. 500 See MARTIN DE AGAR, Commentary on c. 844, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 414; cf. P.

PALLATH, “Sacramental Sharing According to the Second Vatican Council and Catholic Canon Law,” in

Studies in Church Law, 4 (2008), 185-214.


of Catholic faith in the sacraments; and d) the proper disposition to receive the

sacrament.501

3.4.2 Baptism

Canon 861 §2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist

or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a

case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly.

Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that

the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.502

This section of the canon gives a provision for an extraordinary minister to baptize

in a case of necessity when the ordinary minister (bishop, presbyter, deacon) is absent or

impeded.503 In a case of necessity, especially a danger of death situation as discussed

below, any person (quilibet homo) may baptize. Even non-baptized persons may administer

baptism in case of necessity as long as their intention is to do what the Church does when

it baptizes.504

Strictly speaking, catechumens requesting baptism are not christifideles and so do

not fall within the parameters of this study. However, they are accorded some rights in

canon law in virtue of their intention to be baptized (cf. c. 206). Among these rights is the

right to be baptized in danger of death. Indeed, this right applies by the divine law to

501 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 844, in CLSA Comm2, 1026; cf. HUELS, “A Policy on Canon

844 §4 for Canadian Dioceses,” in Studia canonica, 34 (2000), 91-118. 502 Cf. CCEO, c. 677, §2; CIC, c. 861, §2. Absente aut impedito ministro ordinario, licite baptismum

confert catechista aliusve ad hoc munus ab Ordinario loci deputatus, immo, in casu necessitatis, quilibet

homo debita intentione motus soliciti sint animarum pastores, praesertim parochus, ut christifideles de recto

baptizandi modo edoceantur. 503 The absence is not defined by the legislator; however, applying the provisions established in

c. 1116, §1, 2° by analogy, the ordinary minister may be considered absent when it is impossible to reach

him without great difficulty, and it can be prudently expected that this situation will last one month.

Application of this criterion would allow parents to baptize their children within their first week of life (cf.

c. 867). 504 See W.H. WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 51. See also A.URRU, “Ministrostraordinariodelbattesimo:

fondamento di tale potestà,” in Questioni canonice, no. 22, Studia Universitatis S. Thomæ in Urbe, Milan,

Massimo, 1984, 209.


anyone, even if not formally admitted to the Order of Catechumens. Once baptized, they

have the right to be confirmed and to receive Viaticum, as discussed below.

Right to baptism of an infant in danger of death

Canon 867 §2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without

delay.505

The focus of the second paragraph of c. 867 is an infant in danger of death, who

should be baptized without delay. This norm should be read in conjunction with c. 861 §2

which concerns the absence of the ordinary minister in a case of necessity.506 The implicit

right (with respect to both adults and infants in danger of death) is a right of the divine law

applicable to all persons since baptism “is necessary for salvation by actual reception or at

least by desire” (c. 849).507 As seen above, c. 865, §2 on the baptism of an adult in danger

of death has explicit wording of this right (baptizari potest), but in this canon the right of

the infant is implicit from the obligation of the minister to baptize without delay.

Right to baptism even against the wishes of parents

Canon 868 §2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic

parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the

parents.508

This canon deals with the baptism of an infant in danger of death even if the parents

are opposed to the baptism. This norm is applicable to an infant of Catholic or non-Catholic

parents. The canon affirms the necessity of baptism for salvation, even in the face of

505 Cf. CIC, c. 867, §2. Si infans in periculo mortis versetur, sine ullamorabaptizetur. 506 See BLANCO, Commentary on c. 867, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 466. 507 Cf. A.L. LINAO, “The Deferral of Baptism of Children of Unmarried Couples,” in Philippine

Canonical Forum, 8 (2011), 279-288. 508 Cf. CCEO, c. 681, §4; CIC, c. 868, §2. Infans parentum catholicorum, immo et non catholicorum,

in periculo mortis licite baptizatur, etiam invitis parentibus.


parental opposition, and asserts that the eternal salvation of the child prevails over the

wishes of the parents.509 The implicit right of this canon is the same as that of c. 867 §2.

3.4.3 Confirmation

Canon 883. The following possess the faculty of administering

confirmation by the law itself:

3° as regards those who are in danger of death, the pastor or indeed any

presbyter.510

The administration of confirmation to those in danger of death is a function

especially entrusted to pastors (c. 530, 2º).511 Yet, the canon hardly reserves this function

to the pastor, even if he is first mentioned. In virtue of this canon, any presbyter (quilibet

presbyter) has the faculty by law to confirm someone in danger of death. There is no

restriction mentioned, such as being under a censure.512 Again we see the legislator’s deep

concern that there be no merely legal obstacle, such as the lack of a faculty, to hinder a

person in danger of death from the reception of a sacrament, even one like confirmation

that is not necessary for salvation. The Rite of Confirmation gives an exception with regard

to the preparation: if one who has the use of reason is confirmed in danger of death, there

should, as far as possible, be some spiritual preparation given beforehand suited to the

509 See HART, Commentary on c. 868, in CLSA Comm2, 1057; cf. A. ARZA and P. GARIN,

“Comentario al canon 868 §2 del CIC,” in Estudios Eclesiásticos, 74 (1999), 639-660. 510 Cf. CIC c. 883, Ipso iure facultate confirmationem ministrantdi gaudent: 3° quoad eos qui in

periculo mortis versantur, parochus, immo quilibet presbyter. 511 The canon authorizes priests to confirm in danger of death persons who have not received this

sacrament. Pope Pius XII gave this faculty to parish priests within their own territory, and it was subsequently

broadened for mission territories, military chaplains, hospitals, and similar circumstances. See PIUS XII,

Decree Spiritus Sancti munera, 14 September 1946, in AAS, 38 (1946), 349-358. Therefore, c. 566, §1

authorizes every chaplain to confer confirmation in danger of death, and this canon confers the same faculty

“on any parish priest and indeed any priest.” With this last expression, the Code broadens the concession of

this faculty, since the confirmation rite limits it “to any priest who is not under censure or canonical penalty.”

This follows the general rule that “if a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments…the prohibition

is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death” (c. 1335). See

E. TEJERO, Commentary on c. 883, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 521-522. 512 See HART, Commentary on c. 883, in CLSA Comm2, 1081; cf. J.M. HUELS, “The Supply of the

Faculty to Confirm in Common Error,” in Studia canonica, 40 (2006), 293-348.


individual situation.513 The right to confirmation in danger of death is implicit when this

canon is read together with c. 885, §2: “A presbyter who has this faculty [to confirm] must

use if for the sake of those in whose favor the faculty was granted.”

3.4.4 Eucharist

Several canons treat the administration of Holy Communion in danger of death.

This may be during the period of a prolonged or chronic danger of death or it may be close

to the point of death (articulum mortis). If the latter, Holy Communion is to be administered

observing the rite of Viaticum of the Roman Ritual.514 As the last rite of the Church,

Viaticum should be administered in proximate danger of death but while the ailing person

is still conscious.

Young children in danger of death

Canon 913 §2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to

children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from

ordinary food and receive communion reverently.515

The second paragraph of c. 913 deals with the reception of Holy Communion by

young children in danger of death situations. This paragraph allows the Eucharist to be

administered to children in danger of death, even if they have not yet received sacramental

preparation or otherwise have never received the Eucharist. Thus, the “sufficient

knowledge” and “careful preparation” requirements of the first paragraph cede to a more

minimal requirement in danger of death. The canon only requires that they be able to

513 See Rite of Confirmation 12, DOL 2521. 514 Ordo Unctionis infirmorum eorumque pastoralis curae, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1975,

chapter 3; De sacra communione et de cultu mysteriii eucharistici extra Missam, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis,

1973, chapter 2. 515 Cf. CIC, c. 913, §2. Pueris tamen in periculo mortis versantibus sanctissima Eucharistia ministrari

potest, si Corpus Christi a communi cibo discernere et communionem reverenter suscipere possint.


distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive it reverently.516 In doubt

whether this fact is adequately demonstrated, Communion should be given, for the

legislative intent here and elsewhere is that requirements of the merely ecclesiastical law

must give way to the right of the faithful to receive sacraments in danger of death.

Viaticum and subsequent reception of Communion in danger of death

Canon 921 §1. The Christian faithful who are in danger of death from any

cause are to be nourished by Holy Communion in the form of Viaticum.

§2. Even if they have been nourished by Holy Communion on the same day,

however, those in danger of death are strongly urged to receive Communion

again.

§3. While the danger of death lasts, it is recommended that Holy

Communion be administered often, but on separate days.517

Viaticum, which is Holy Communion administered to those at or near the time of

death, is the last sacrament of the Christian life.518 Paragraph one of the canon stresses that

Christ’s faithful are to be strengthened by Viaticum, which implies a duty on the part of

516 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 913, in CLSA Comm2, 1108. See also W. KERN, Pastoral Ministry

with Disabled Persons, New York, NY, Alba House, 1985; D. WILSON, “The Church, the Eucharist, and the

Mentally Handicapped,” in Clergy Review, 60 (1975), 69-84; id., L’Église, l’Eucharistie et les handicaps

mentaux, Lille, FédérationUniversitaire et Polytechnique de Lille, Faculté de Théologie, 1974, 49-56; U.

HOLMES, Young Children and the Eucharist, New York, NY, Seabury, 1982; J.M. HUELS, One Table, Many

Laws: Essays on Catholic Eucharistic Practice, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1986, 74-84;ID.,

“Preparation for the Sacraments,” 33-58. 517 Cf. CCEO, c. 708; CIC, c. 921, §1. Christifideles qui versantur in periculo mortis, quavis ex

causa procedenti, sacra communione per modumViatici reficiantur.

§2. Etiamsi eadem die sacra communione refecti fuerint, valde tamen suadetur ut qui in vitae

discrimen adducti sint, denuo communicent.

§3. Perdurante mortis periculo, commendatur ut sacra communio pluries, distinctis diebus,

administretur. 518 Unfortunately, the expression “the last rites” for many means the conferral of the sacrament of

anointing of the sick upon one who is dying or who will almost certainly die. The revised ritual attempts to

counteract this attitude. Viaticum, food for the passage through death to eternal life, is the real source of

spiritual strength proper to the dying Christian. It signifies the completion and crown of the Christian life on

earth and the attainment of eternal glory and the banquet of the heavenly kingdom. The sacrament of the

anointing of the sick should be celebrated at the beginning of a serious illness. Viaticum, celebrated when

death is close, will then be better understood as the last sacrament of Christian life. Christians in danger of

death are bound by the precept of receiving Communion so that, in their passage from this life, they may be

strengthened by the body of Christ, the pledge of the resurrection.


pastoral ministers to make Viaticum available and a right on the part of the faithful to

receive it at the time of their death.

The second paragraph of this canon speaks of those in danger of death who have

already communicated on the same day. If they are in danger of death, it is “strongly urged”

that they should communicate again according to the special rite of Viaticum. The norm of

c. 917 cedes to this situation. Given the importance of Viaticum, there is an implicit

obligation on the minister to administer Viaticum and a right of the faithful to receive it a

second time even apart from the Eucharistic celebration.

Paragraph three of the canon is about one who is continually in a danger of death

situation. In such situations it is “recommended” that Holy Communion be administered

often (pluries) but on separate days (c. 921, §3). Canon 911 identifies those who have the

duty to bring Viaticum: pastor, assistant priest, chaplains, other priests, superior in clerical

institutes or societies, deacons, and lay ministers.519 To facilitate daily Communion by

someone in protracted danger of death, the pastor can avail himself of the assistance of

deacons, acolytes, and other extraordinary ministers of Communion. If this cannot readily

be done, the pastor himself is not strictly obliged to bring Communion frequently to such

persons, as the law only recommends but does not require the practice. Thus, there is no

right on the part of the faithful to receive Communion often while in danger of death apart

from the right already expressed in c. 918.

519 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 155.


Right to receive Viaticum in due time

Canon 922. Holy Viaticum for the sick is not to be delayed too long; those

who have the care of souls are to be zealous and vigilant that the sick are

nourished by Viaticum while fully conscious.520

This canon stresses the diligent care towards dying persons who should receive

Viaticum while they are fully conscious. This duty is laid upon those who have the care of

souls, and thus it follows that the faithful in danger of death have a right to receive the

sacrament from these ministers before they fall unconscious.521 The instruction

Eucharisticum mysterium also insisted that the faithful themselves have the obligation to

receive this sacrament.522 Consequently, the reception of Holy Viaticum is both a right and

a duty of the all faithful.

3.4.5 Penance

The right to receive the sacrament of penance in danger of death is implicit in three

canons. Each of these has in common the right of the dying person to confess to any validly

ordained priest.

A priest lacking the faculty

Canon 976. Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he

absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death

from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.523

This canon is about the faculty to hear confessions in danger of death situations. In

the canonical system, the highest law is the salus animarum (c. 1752), which in c. 976

520 Cf. CIC, c. 922. Sanctum Viaticum infirmis ne nimium differatur; qui animarum curam gerunt

sedulo advigilent, ut eodem infirmi plene sui compotes reficiantur. 521 See WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 155; cf. P.J. VERE, “Administering Viaticum to a Dying Individual

of Unknown Cognitive Capacity,” in Roman Replies Advisory Opinions, (2004), 151-154. 522 Cf. CONGREGATION OF RITES, Instruction, Eucharisticum mysterium, 25 May 1967 (= EM), no.

39, in AAS, 59 (1967), 539-578, 562, English translation in FLANNERY1, 100-136, 124. 523 Cf. CCEO, c. 725; CIC, c. 976. Quilibet sacerdos, licet ad confessiones excipiendas facultate

careat, quoslibet paenitentes in periculo mortis versantes valide et licite absolvit a quibusvis censuris et

peccatis, etiamsi praesens sit sacerdos approbatus.


pertains to the eternal salvation of the penitent.524 The canon is all embracing: every validly

ordained priest, no matter what his canonical status or situation, can absolve any penitent

who is in danger of death and, indeed, is strictly obliged to do so (c. 986, §2). It follows,

therefore, that a dying person has the right to receive the sacrament of penance from any

priest of his or her choosing. The final clause of this canon is: “even if an approved priest

[with the requisite faculties] is present.” The penitent is completely free in such

circumstances to confess to a priest who lacks faculties (e.g., due to the loss of the clerical

state) or who is not in good standing with the Church (e.g., due to suspension or

excommunication). This absolution in danger of death covers not just sins but also all

ecclesiastical sanctions.525

The general norm of posterior recourse is that, if the penitent was absolved from an

imposed or declared censure or one reserved to the Holy See and later recovers, he or she

is then bound to have recourse within one month to the competent authority, under pain of

again incurring the censure (c. 1357, §3). Recourse may be made via the confessor. Those

subject to unreserved, undeclared latae sententiae (automatic) penalties are exempt from

such an obligation of recourse after recovering from a crisis.526

A priest accomplice

Canon 977. The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth

commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.527

The canon speaks about an invalid absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth

commandment. Except when the penitent is in danger of death, absolution given by a priest

524 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 976, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 796. 525 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 976, in CLSA Comm2, 1160. 526 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 976, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 797. 527 Cf. CCEO, c. 730; CIC, c. 977. Absolutio complicis in peccato contra sextum Decalogi

praeceptum invalida est, praeterquam in periculo mortis.


to a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment is invalid, and the priest also incurs a

latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Holy See (c. 1378, §1). However, this

strictness of the law does not apply in danger of death. The legislator wants to assure that

requirements of the merely ecclesiastical law do not interfere with a person’s eternal

salvation. It follows that a penitent in danger of death has the implicit right to choose any

priest to hear his or her confession, including a priest who was an accomplice in a sin

against the sixth commandment.528

Right implied in the duty of every priest

Canon 986 §2. In urgent necessity, any confessor is obliged to hear the

confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death, any priest is so

obliged.529

The second paragraph of c. 986 imposes two obligations. The first obligation

pertains to any situation of urgent necessity, not just danger of death. Every confessor (i.e.,

a priest with the faculty to hear confessions) is obliged to hear confessions when some need

urges it (urgente necessitate). This obligation is laid out of pastoral charity rather than

justice as compared to paragraph one of this canon (discussed above). The second

obligation is binding on all validly ordained priests, even those who have lost the clerical

state or who are under the penalty of an inflicted or a declared excommunication. Any

priest is strictly obliged to hear the confession of someone who seeks the sacrament and is

in danger of death.530 Doubtless, there are rights implied here: the strong right to the

sacrament in an urgent need and even stronger right in danger of death.

528 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 976, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 799; A. BAMBERG, “L’évêque

face à la sainteté des sacraments: loi et procédure concernant les délits les plus graves,” in Revue de Droit

Canonique, 57 (2007), 49-433. 529 Cf. CCEO, c. 735; CIC, c. 986, §2. Urgente necessitate, quilibet confessarius obligatione tenetur

confessiones christifidelium excipiendi, et in periculo mortis quilibet sacerdos. 530 See LOZA, Commentary on c. 986, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 831.


3.4.6 Anointing of the sick

Canon 1004 §1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member

of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger

due to sickness or old age.

§2. This sacrament can be repeated if the sick person, having recovered,

again becomes gravely ill or if the condition becomes more grave during

the same illness.531

From the first paragraph of the canon, it may seem that the anointing of the sick is

merely an option, that it “can be administered.” However, this refers to the eligibility for

the sacrament on the part of the recipient: they are able to receive the sacrament when they

have the use of reason and begin to be in danger due to sickness or old age. As for the

ministers, they are strictly obliged by the liturgical law to administer this sacrament. They

must confer (conferenda est) the blessed oil on the faithful who are in danger due to

sickness or old age.532 Consequently, the faithful have a right to the sacrament at the

beginning of an infirmity that puts them in danger of death. According to the liturgical law,

this includes a sick person before undergoing surgery, elderly people if they have become

weak due to their age, and sick children if they have sufficient use of reason to be comforted

by the sacrament.533

The sacrament of the anointing of the sick can be repeated if the sick person, having

recovered, again becomes seriously ill or if, in the same illness, the danger becomes more

serious (c. 1004, §2). The repetition of the anointing is not a mere option, as could be

531 Cf. CIC, c. 1004, §1. Unctio infirmorum ministrari potest fideli qui, adepto rationis usu, ob

infirmitatem vel senium in periculo incipit versari.

§2. Hoc sacramentum iterari potest, si infirmus, postquam convaluerit, denuo in gravem

infirmitatem inciderit aut si, eadem infirmitate perdurante, discrimen factum gravius sit. 532 Ordo Unctionis infirmorum eorumque pastoralis curae, editio typica, 7 December 1972, Typis

Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1975, no. 8. 533 Ibid., nos. 10-12; English translation in Pastoral Care of the Sick: Rites of Anointing and

Viaticum, in DOL, 3330-3332. Cf. W.B. SMITH, “Execution and Anointing,” in Homiletic and Pastoral

Review, 10 (200), 72-74.


misconstrued by the words “can be repeated.” As in the first paragraph, this refers to the

eligibility for the sacrament’s repetition. If, after the anointing, the person recovers and

later becomes seriously ill or if, in the same illness, the danger becomes more serious, the

minister has a duty to confer the sacrament, and the faithful have a right to it. Apart from

these conditions, there is no right to the anointing once it has been administered.

3.5 Rights to the Preparation for the Sacraments

The right to sacramental preparation was already seen in several canons of Book

III of the Code, as discussed in the previous chapter, and Book IV has even more canons.

The right to the sacraments is expressed in the fundamental c. 213 which states, “The

Christian faithful have the right to receive the assistance from the sacred pastors out of the

spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.” To this right

there are correlative obligations on the part of ministers to prepare the faithful for the

sacraments. This duty extends not only to the pastors of souls but also to parents and those

in ministry assisting the pastors, including other priests and deacons, catechists, and the

Christian community at large (cf. c. 776). The right to preparation and formation for the

sacraments is further reinforced in cc. 843, 836, and 843, §2. The following six canons deal

with implicit rights pertaining to the preparation for the sacraments.534

3.5.1 Right to the ministry of the word

Canon 836. Since Christian worship, in which the common priesthood of

the Christian faithful is carried out, is a work which proceeds from faith and

is based on it, sacred ministers are to take care to arouse and enlighten this

534 See HUELS, “Preparation for the Sacraments,” 33-58.


faith diligently, especially through the ministry of the word, which gives

birth to and nourishes the faith.535

The canon begins by orienting divine worship to the common priesthood of the

faithful. The Christian faithful share in the priesthood of Christ through participation in the

sanctifying office of the Church, mainly through the liturgy. In order for this participation

to be fruitful and to obtain the graces of the liturgy, the faithful must have the proper

disposition.536 According to c. 836, the ordained ministers and their collaborators have the

obligation to arouse and nourish the faith of those in their charge. This is done in various

ways through the ministry of the word: catechesis, preaching, evangelization, and the

immediate preparation for the sacraments. The faithful on their part have the duty to learn

about the faith and deepen their appreciation of it by their active participation in the

liturgy.537 Since the ordained ministers have the obligation to arouse and enlighten faith, it

follows that the faithful have an implicit right to this evangelization through the ministry

of the word, as discussed amply in the preceding chapter.

3.5.2 Baptism

Canon 861 §2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist

or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a

case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly.

Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that

the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.538

535 Cf. CIC, c. 836. Cum cultus christianus, in quo sacerdotium commune christifidelium exercetur,

opus sit quod a fide procedit et eadem innititur, ministri sacri eandem excitare et illustrare sedulo curent,

ministerio praesertim verbi, quo fides nascitur et nutritur. 536 See HUELS, “Preparation for the Sacraments,” 33-58. 537 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 836, in CLSA Comm2, 1010; cf. A.F. REHRAUER, “An

Introduction to Liturgical Law: Sources and Interpretation,” in CLSA Proceedigs, 64 (2002), 241-252. 538 Cf. CCEO, c. 677, §2; CIC, c. 861, §2. Absente aut impedito ministro ordinario, licite baptismum

confert catechista aliusve ad hoc munus ab Ordinario loci deputatus, immo, in casu necessitatis, quilibet

homo debita intentione motus solliciti sint animarum pastores, praesertim parochus, ut christifideles de recto

baptizandi modo edoceantur.


This canon was treated earlier under the rights to the sacraments in the danger of

death. However, here our concern is on the right to formation for the sacrament of baptism,

not preparation to receive it but to administer it correctly. In necessity, the canon permits

the extraordinary minister to be any person, baptized or not, as long as the minister has the

right intention to do what the Church intends.539 In this regard, the canon requires pastors

of souls and especially the parish priest to be solicitous so that the faithful are taught to

baptize correctly (de recto).540 It follows from this obligation that the faithful have a right

to learn the correct way to baptize so that they may do so in a case of necessity. Eloy Tejero

asserts that the knowledge about administering this sacrament must form part of Christian

formation since baptism is necessary for salvation.541

3.5.3 Confirmation

Canon 889 §2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death

requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed,

properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.542

The canon establishes three requirements that must be present to receive the

sacrament of confirmation licitly: due instruction, proper disposition and ability to renew

the baptismal promises. Our concern here is the recipient’s suitable instruction and

preparation for the sacrament. This duty of preparing the candidates for the reception of

539 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 843, in CLSA Comm2, 1024; cf. G. READ, “Unauthorized

Baptism,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 149 (2007), 54-58. 540 All lay persons, since they belong to the priestly people, and especially parents and, by reason of

their work, catechists, midwives, family or social workers or nurses of the sick, as well as physicians and

surgeons, should be thoroughly aware, according to their capacities, of the proper method of baptizing in

case of emergency. They should be taught by parish priests, deacons, and catechists. Bishops should provide

appropriate means within their diocese for such instruction.See the General Introduction to Christian

Initiation, 17. 541 See E. TEJERO, Commentary on c. 861, in CCLA, 679 (=TEJERO, Commentary on c. 861 in

CCLA). 542 Cf. CIC c. 889, §2. Extra periculum mortis, ut quis licite confirmationem recipiat, requiritur, si

rationis usu polleat, ut sit apte institutus, rite dispositus et promissiones baptismales renovare valeat.


the sacrament mainly falls on the pastor (cf. c. 777, 2°), at least to arrange for and oversee

this preparation even if he does not personally get involved with the actual catechesis.

Because the pastor has this responsibility in law, the faithful have a right to suitable

preparation for confirmation. Commenting on this canon, Tomás Rincón-Pérez explains

that every juridical regulation of a fundamental right, such as c. 889, must be interpreted

in light of the principle of justice.543

Right to proper instruction for confirmation

Canon 890. The faithful are obliged to receive this sacrament at the proper

time. Parents and pastors of souls, especially pastors of parishes, are to take

care that the faithful are properly instructed to receive the sacrament and

come to it at the appropriate time.544

The canon enunciates the same duty and implicit right as in the previous one.

Rincón-Pérez highlights the two duties in this canon with regard to the preparation and

reception of confirmation. First is the obligation of the faithful to receive the sacrament at

the proper time. Every faithful who has domicile or quasi-domicile in a particular

ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and who is not barred from receiving the sacrament due to age

or another reason, is obligated to receive the sacrament at the proper time. The Rite of

Confirmation extensively deals with the role of parents and pastors in this endeavor of

preparing for the sacrament.545

543 See T. RINCÓN-PÉREZ, Commentary on c. 889, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 539; cf. ID., “El

ministro de la confirmación, edad y preparación debida del confirmando,” in Revista Española de Derecho

Canónico, 61 (2004), 87-114; G. READ, “Pastoral Policies on the Administration of the Sacraments,” in

CLSN, 124 (2000), 43-44. 544 Cf. CCEO, c. 695 §1; CIC, c. 890. Fideles tenentur obligatione hoc sacramentum tempestive

recipiendi; current parentes, animarum pastores, praesertim parochi, ut fideles ad illud recipiendum rite

instruantur et opportuno tempore accedant. 545 See Rite of Confirmation 3, DOL 2512; see also K.T. HART, Commentary on c. 890, in CLSA

Comm2, 1087.


The second duty is the pre-sacramental preparation which is both a right and a duty.

The canon affirms the right to preparation on the part of the faithful and confirms the duty

of preparation by the pastors of souls and also the parents if those being prepared are

children. The right to preparation for confirmation is rooted not only in a moral duty on the

part of those charged to carry it out but also a juridical one.546

3.5.4 Eucharist

Canon 914. It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place

of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have

reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made

sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as

possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have

not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently

disposed do not approach Holy Communion.547

The canon emphasizes the role and duty of parents in the sacramental preparation

of their children. The canon establishes that it is primarily (imprimis) the duty of parents

and those who take the place of parents, and pastors as well, to take care that children who

have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental

confession, to be refreshed with the Holy Eucharist as soon as possible.548This canon does

not, however, bind the parents to participate in sacramental preparation programmes along

with their children, even if this may be desirable.549

546 See RINCÓN-PÉREZ, Commentary on c. 890, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 542-545. 547 Cf. CIC c. 914. Parentum imprimis atque eorum qui parentum locum tenent necnon parochi

officium est curandi ut pueri usum rationis assecuti debite praeparentur et quamprimum, praemissa

sacramentali confessione, hoc divino cibo reficiantur; parochi etiam est advigilare ne ad sacram Synaxim

accedant pueri, qui rationis usum non sint adepti aut quos non sufficienter dispositos iudicaverit. 548 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 914, in CLSA Comm2, 1109. 549 Huels observes that the lack of participation on the part of the parents in the catechetical

programme of the children cannot justify the denial of the sacrament to the child. This is a clear violation of

the child’s right to the sacraments. See HUELS, “Preparation for the Sacraments,” 52. See also J.H. PROVOST,

“The Reception of First Penance,” in The Jurist, 47 (1987), 294-340; J.M. HUELS, Disputed Questions in the

Liturgy Today, Chicago, IL, Liturgy Training Publications, 1988, 67-74; W.H. WOESTMAN, Sacraments, 129-

131.


Although the pastor is mentioned subsequently in the canon, he has the same duty

as the parents and those who take their place to see that children who have reached the use

of reason are duly prepared for the reception of first Communion and that they receive it

as soon as possible (quam primum). Implied in this duty of the pastor is the right of children

to be prepared for the reception of first Communion as soon as possible after they have

attained the use of reason. The canon gives broad discretionary scope to the pastor for

determining whether the child meets this requirement so that children may receive this

sacrament as early as possible and so are not deprived of a sacrament to which they have a

right in law.550

3.5.5 Anointing of the sick

Canon 1001. Pastors of souls and those close to the sick are to take care

that the sick are consoled by this sacrament at the appropriate time.551

The main purpose of this canon is to ensure that the faithful have the opportunity

to receive the sacrament of the anointing of the sick at the appropriate time, that is, when

they begin to be in danger due to sickness or old age. This duty rests on the pastors of souls

and those who are close to the sick person.552There is no explicit mention of preparation

for the sacrament. However, if those close to the sick are to take care that the sick are

consoled by the sacrament at the appropriate time, it falls to the pastors of souls to teach

them about this appropriate time. A liturgical law states: “In public and private catechesis,

the faithful should be educated to ask for the sacrament of anointing and, as soon as the

right time comes, to receive it with full faith and devotion. They should not follow the

550 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 914, in CLSA Comm2, 1109. 551 Cf. CCEO, c. 738, §1; CIC, c. 1001. Curent animarum pastores et infirmorum propinqui, ut

tempore opportuno infirmi hoc sacramento subleventur. 552 See MCMANUS, Commentary on c. 1001, in CLSA Comm2, 1184.


wrongful practice of delaying the reception of the sacrament. All who care for the sick

should be taught the meaning and purpose of the sacrament.”553 Clearly, catechetical

preparation for the anointing is a requirement of the law, so it follows that the faithful have

the right to this preparation.

3.6 Rights to Church Funerals

This section treats the legislation of the Code on rights pertaining to the celebration

of funeral rites. There are four canons which accord the faithful the right to have the funeral

rites of the Church.

3.6.1 Right to a funeral

Can. 1176 §1. Deceased members of the Christian faithful must be given

ecclesiastical funerals according to the norm of law.554

The first paragraph uses the passive periphrastic donandi sunt, translated as the

faithful must be given funeral rites according to the norm of law. This strong obligation

implies an equally strong right of the faithful to an ecclesiastical funeral, according to the

norm of law. The obligation is on the part of pastors to see that Church funeral rites are

celebrated for their deceased parishioners (cf. c. 530, 5°), even those who may not

have been active in the parish during their lifetime. 555

3.6.2 Churches for funerals

Canon 1177 §1. A funeral for any deceased member of the faithful must

generally be celebrated in his or her parish church.

§2. Any member of the faithful or those competent to take care of the funeral

of a deceased member of the faithful are permitted to choose another church

for the funeral rite with the consent of the person who governs it and after

notification of the proper pastor of the deceased.

553 Cf. RAnointing 13, DOL 3333. 554 Cf. CCEO, c. 875, CIC, c. 1176, § 1. Christifideles defuncti exequiis ecclesiasticis ad normam

iuris donandi sunt. 555 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 1176, in CLSA Comm2, 1408.


§3. If a death occurred outside the person’s own parish, and the body was

not transferred to it nor another church legitimately chosen for the funeral

rite, the funeral is to be celebrated in the church of the parish where the

death occurred unless particular law has designated another church.556

The first paragraph of c.1177 uses preceptive language: funeral rites must be

celebrated (celebraridebent) in one’s own parish church. This obligation is binding on both

the faithful and the pastor but more so on the pastor. He has the obligation to provide the

funeral rites of his parishioners (cf. cc. 107, §1, 530, 5°). This implies the right of Catholics

to funeral rites in their parish church, whether or not they were active parishioners during

life. Besides the right to a funeral in their own parish, there is also the possibility of having

a funeral in another church in keeping with the provisions of the second paragraph of the

canon. Indeed, the faithful have the explicit right (fas est) to choose another church but the

exercise of this right is subject to the consent of the person who governs the church.

Moreover, when a faithful dies away from his/her parish and the body cannot be returned

to the proper parish, the third paragraph of the canon prescribes, unless particular law

provides otherwise, that the funeral rites should be celebrated in the parish where the death

occurs. This ensures that the faithful have a right to a Church funeral even if their body

cannot be returned to their home parish.557

556 Cf. CIC, c. 1177, §1. Exequiae pro quolibet fideli defuncto generatim in propriae paroeciae

ecclesia celebrari debent.

§2. Fas est autem cuilibet fideli, vel iis quibus fidelis defuncti exequias curare competit, aliam

ecclesiam funeris eligere de consensu eius, qui eam regit, et monito defuncti parocho proprio.

§3. Si extra propriam paroeciam mors acciderit, neque cadaver ad eam translatum fuerit, neque

aliqua ecclesia funeris legitime electa, exequiae celebrentur in ecclesia paroeciae ubi mors accidit, nisi alia

iure particulari designata sit. 557 Cf. P. DUGAN, “Burial in a Catholic Cemetery,” in Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions,

2005, 82-83; R. BARRY, “Should the Catholic Church Give Christian Burial to Rational Suicides?,” in

Angelicum, 74 (1997), 513-550; F.G. MORRISEY, “Issues Relating to Cremation Today,” in Australian

Catholic Record, 81 (2004), 308-323; M.J. HENSCHAL, “Cremation: Canonical Issues,” in The Jurist, 55

(1995), 281-298; J. GONZÁLEZ, “Cremation: A Valid Option for Catholics?,” in Boletín eclesiástico de

Filipinas, 81 (2005), 899-910; ID., “Suicide and Catholic Burial,” in Boletín eclesiástico de Filipinas, 77

(2001), 282-283.


3.6.3 Rights concerning offerings for funerals

Canon 1181. Regarding offerings on the occasion of funeral rites, the

prescripts of can. 1264 are to be observed, with the caution, however, that

there is to be no favoritism toward persons in funerals and that the poor are

not deprived of fitting funerals.558

The canon deals with offerings on the occasion of funeral rites. Canon 1264, 2°

says that, unless the law has provided otherwise, the bishops of a province are competent

at a meeting “to set a limit on the offerings on the occasion of the administration of

sacraments and sacramentals.” In virtue of c. 1181, this norm applies to offerings for

funerals, with the caution that there is to be no favoritism toward persons and that the poor

are not deprived of proper funeral rites (cf. c. 848). There are two implicit rights here. The

first is that the faithful have the right not to be asked for a higher offering than that

established at a meeting of the province’s bishops. The second is that the poor have an

implicit right to the funeral rites of the Church even if they are unable to pay the usual

required offering.559

3.6.4 Right of catechumens for funerals

Canon 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted

among the Christian faithful.560

This first paragraph of c. 1183 treats the right of catechumens to a Church funeral.

Although catechumens are not yet christifideles, they must be counted (accensendi sunt)

558 Cf. CCEO, c. 878; CIC, c. 1181. Ad oblationes occasione funerum quod attinet, serventur

praescripta can. 1264, cauto tamen ne ulla fiat in exequiis personarum acceptio neve pauperes debitis exequiis

priventur. 559 See SANTOS, Commentary on c. 1181, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1692-1693; cf. K. IRWIN,

“Dying, Death and Burial - Overview of Christian Practices,” in The Jurist, 59 (1999), 175-190. 560 Cf. CCEO, c. 875, 876, §1, §2; CIC, c. 1183, §1. Ad exequias quod attinet, christifidelibus

catechumeni accensendi sunt.

§2. Ordinarius loci permittere potest ut parvuli, quos parentes baptizare intendebant quique autem

ante baptismum mortui sunt, exequiis ecclesiasticis donentur.

§3. Baptizatis alicui Ecclesiae aut communitati ecclesiali non catholicae adscriptis, exequiae

ecclesiasticae concedi possunt de prudenti Ordinarii loci iudicio, nisi constet de contraria eorum voluntate et

dummodo minister proprius haberi nequeat.


among them with respect to funerals, that is, they have the same rights as the Catholic

faithful. Through this canon, the legislator extends the right to a funeral of Catholic

Christian faithful even to those who are only in communion with the Church by the baptism

of desire.561

3.7 Rights Concerning Churches

A church is the house of God in which the community meets for the celebration of

divine worship.562 This section of the chapter deals with the faithful’s rights of access to

churches.563 An explicit right of the faithful to enter a church is a constituent element of

the very definition of a church in canon law. According to c. 1214,564 a church has three

principal elements. It is (1) a sacred building designated for divine worship, (2) to which

the faithful have the right (ius) of entry, (3) for the exercise, especially the public exercise,

of divine worship. The faithful exercise this right in accord with the rite to which they

belong (c. 214) and as long as they are in full communion with the Church (c. 205).565 Here

our concern is to deal with four canons which have implicit rights of the faithful concerning

churches.

561 See SANTOS, Commentary on c. 1183, 1696; Cf. W.B. SMITH, “Non-Catholic Funerals?” in

Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 4 (2005), 67-68. 562 See J. KRUKOWSKI, Commentary on c. 1214, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1809;

C. MOHRMANN, “Les dénominations de l’Église en tant qu’édifice en grec et en latin au cours des premiers

siècles chrétiens,” in Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 36 (1962), 155-174. 563 The Catholic tradition is unanimous regarding the importance of churches over the other sacred

places, because from the domus Ecclesiae to the most modern parishes, including basilicas, cathedrals,

collegiate churches, etc., in the most diverse locations and cultures, there have always existed buildings

assigned to the religious service of all the faithful. This is what the Code calls churches. They are, in fact,

sacred buildings assigned to divine worship to which “all the faithful have right of access for the exercise,

most of all, of divine worship” (c. 1214). Their nature entails the obligation to dedicate them according to

the liturgical prescriptions (c. 1217). For a detailed commentary on sacred places and times, see J.A. ABAD,

Commentary on Sacred Places and Sacred Times cc. 1205-1253, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1783-1912. 564 Cf. CCEO, c. 869, §1; CIC, c. 1214. Ecclesiae nomine intellegitur aedes sacra divino cultui

destinata, ad quam fidelibus ius est adeundi ad divinum cultum praesertim publice exercendum. 565See MARTIN DE AGAR, Commentary on c. 1214, in CCLA, 938.


3.7.1 Right to have sacred images in the churches

Canon 1188. The practice of displaying sacred images in churches for the

reverence of the faithful is to remain in effect. Nevertheless, they are to be

exhibited in moderate number and in suitable order so that the Christian

people are not confused nor occasion given for inappropriate devotion.566

The canon regulates the norm on the practice of displaying sacred images for the

reverence of the faithful in churches. This canon takes its roots from the fundamental rights

of the faithful to be enriched by the spiritual goods of the Church from the sacred pastors

(c. 213) and to make known their spiritual needs and desires to them (c. 212, §2). There

are two obligations in the canon binding those in charge of churches, which in turn imply

rights for the faithful who use the churches. The faithful have the right to some sacred

images for their reverence, but they also have the right that these images not be so

numerous as to be overwhelming or inappropriate.567

3.7.2 Right to free entry into the churches

Canon 1221. Entry to a church is to be free and gratuitous during the time

of sacred celebrations.568

This canon implies a right of the faithful to enter the church without charge for

sacred worship. Even though entrance to a church during the time of sacred celebrations is

gratuitous, there may be other times when entrance to the church itself is not free. For

instance, if the church is of particular artistic value and is considered analogous to a

museum, admission may be charged. Such fees can assist with church maintenance and the

costs associated with security, accommodating large number of visitors, etc. However,

566 Cf. CCEO, c. 886; CIC, c. 1188. Firma maneat praxis in ecclesiis sacras imagines fidelium

venerationi proponendi; attamen moderato numero et congruo ordine exponantur, ne populi christiani

admiratio excitetur, neve devotioni minus rectae ansa praebeatur. 567 Cf. S. BOIRON, “Trente et les images,” in Année Canonique, 46 (2004), 195-222. 568 Cf. CIC, c. 1221. Ingressus in ecclesiam tempore sacrarum celebrationum sit liber et gratuitus.


John Huels argues that, in cases where fees are charged, provision must still be made for

the free entry of the people who wish to pray before the Blessed Sacrament (cf. c. 937), at

least for some period each day or in that part of the church where the sacrament is reserved,

as treated in the next canon.569

3.7.3 Right to enter church at least for few hours a day

Canon 937. Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, a church in which

the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is to be open to the faithful for at least

some hours every day so that they can pray before the Most Blessed

Sacrament.570

Although this canon appears earlier in Book IV in the Title on the Eucharist, the

real import of the canon concerns the church where the Eucharist is reserved rather than

the sacrament itself. The canon acknowledges the prominent place of the Eucharist in the

life of the Church. The legislator wishes to have the possibility for the faithful to pray

before the reserved Eucharist and so requires that churches be open for some hours of the

day, that is, more than one hour.571 As Juan Ignacio Bañares affirms, making this possibility

of the Blessed Sacrament to be available to the faithful is not just a moral responsibility

but one that is of strict justice, given the importance of the Eucharist in the life of the

faithful.572

569 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 1221, in CLSA Comm2, 1432; cf. ID., “Canonical Comments on

Concerts in Churches,” in Worship, 62 (1988), 165-172; C. AZZIMONTI, “L’ingresso in chiesa, libero e

gratuito, nel tempo delle sacre celebrazioni (can. 1221),” in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale, 18 (2005), 194-

201; E.M. LOHSE, “The Right of the Faithful to Enter a Church for the Offering of Divine Worship,” in Studia

Canonica, 51 (2017), 497-527; G. HERKEL, “The Sacred and Profane in Canon Law,” inStudia canonica, 3

(1969), 49-75. 570 Cf. CIC, c. 937. Nisi gravis obstet ratio, ecclesia in qua sanctissima Eucharistia asservatur, per

aliquot saltem horas cotidie fidelibus pateat, ut coram sanctissimo Sacramento orationi vacare possint. 571 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 937, in CLSA Comm1, 664; cf. M. MOSCONI, “A che ora apre la

chiesa? Le disposizioni del can. 937,” in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale, 16 (2003), 145-163. 572 See J.I. BAÑARES, Commentary on c. 937, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 673.


In saying that a church is to be open (pateat), the canon implies that the faithful

have the right to enter a church every day for a visit to the Blessed Sacrament. The canon,

however, contains an excepting clause: “unless there is a grave reason to the contrary.”

Thus, the right to enter a church for prayer before the reserved sacrament exists only insofar

as there is no reason for keeping the church locked, such as danger of vandalism, burglary,

or desecration. However, where no such reason exists, the pastor or other authority

responsible for the church has the duty to keep it open for at least some hours every day.

3.7.4 Rights concerning the relegation of a church to profane use

Canon 1222 §1. If a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship

and there is no possibility of repairing it, the diocesan bishop can relegate it

to profane but not sordid use.

§2. Where other grave causes suggest that a church no longer be used for

divine worship, the diocesan bishop, after having heard the presbyteral

council, can relegate it to profane but not sordid use, with the consent of

those who legitimately claim rights for themselves in the church and

provided that the good of souls suffers no detriment thereby.573

This canon deals with the relegation of a church to profane use in accordance with

c. 1212, which treats sacred places in general losing their dedication or blessing by their

destruction or by decree of the competent ordinary. Since it is the diocesan bishop who

grants express written consent for the erection of church (c. 1215, §1), he is also the

competent authority to relegate it to profane use by means of a decree. Even if the church

is owned by a juridic person other than the diocese or parish, it is still the diocesan bishop

who is competent to relegate it to profane use.

573 Cf. CCEO, c. 873; CIC, c. 1222, §1. Si qua ecclesia nullo modo ad cultum divinum adhiberi

queat et possibilitas non detur eam reficiendi, in usum profanum non sordidum ab Episcopo dioecesano redigi

potest.

§2. Ubi aliae graves causae suadeant ut aliqua ecclesia ad divinum cultum amplius non adhibeatur,

eam Episcopus dioecesanus, audito consilio presbyterali, in usum profanum non sordidum redigere potest,

de consensus eorum qui iura in eadem sibi legitime vindicent, et dummodo animarum bonum nullum inde

detrimentum capiat.


The second paragraph deals with other grave causes which suggest that a church no

longer be used for divine worship. The canon points out three conditions that the diocesan

bishop is to observe before relegation of a church to profane use. He must (1) hear the

presbyteral council (cf. c. 127, §1), (2) obtain the consent of those people who have legal

rights towards the church, and (3) ensure that the good of the souls would not be harmed.

Both paragraphs of c. 1222 imply a right of the faithful with regard to the church

building and the right to celebrate the liturgy in it. This right can be restricted only

according to the conditions of the canon, in particular, that there be the impossibility of

using the church or other grave causes suggest relegation to profane use. The legislator

clearly upholds the right of the faithful to continue to worship in their church while at the

same time respecting the discretion of the diocesan bishop to relegate it to profane use

according to the rules of this canon (cf. also c. 1284, §1, 3°).574 This right is reinforced by

the restriction that a church may be relegated to profane use only “provided that the good

of souls suffers no detriment thereby.”

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have examined the rights of the faithful in the canons of Book

IV of the Code of Canon Law, entitled De Ecclesiae munere sanctificandi. The canons of

this Book are related to the Church’s mission of sanctification, which is focused primarily

on the public worship of God. Various explicit and implicit rights were identified in several

categories: rights to the official liturgical celebrations of the Church, explicit rights to the

sacraments, implicit rights to the sacraments, rights to the sacraments in danger of death,

574 See HUELS, Commentary on c. 1222, in CLSA Comm2, 1432-1433; cf. N. SCHÖCH, “Relegation

of Churches to Profane Use (c. 1222, §2): Reasons and Procedure,” in The Jurist, 67 (2007), 485-502.


rights to preparation for the sacraments, rights to Church funerals, and rights concerning

churches.

We identified several rights in Book IV that are explicit, but most of the rights in

Book IV are implicit and typically the consequence of the concominant duties imposed on

Church ministers and office holders. We have seen that the faithful implicitly have the right

to have their liturgical ministers faithfully observe the liturgical books approved by

competent authority. This general right is applied specifically to the sacraments (c. 846,

§1) and the sacramentals (c. 1167, §2).

A number of canons implicitly deal with the right of the faithful to receive the

sacraments. This right is first implied in c. 843, §1,which prohibits sacred ministers from

denying the sacraments to the faithful who seek them at appropriate times, are properly

disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them. This right to the sacraments

is also seen in the prohibition against charging a higher offering than that established by

the competent authority and the requirement that the poor not be deprived of the sacraments

(c. 848).

Other implicit rights regarding specific sacraments are the right to have baptism

celebrated elsewhere apart from the place of baptism (c. 859); the right of the newly

baptized to be confirmed immediately after adult baptism and to participate in the

celebration of the Eucharist and receive Communion (c. 866); the right to receive

confirmation from a minister, whether bishop or presbyter, who has the duty to administer

it (c. 885); the right of the faithful to be confirmed at the age of discretion or other lawful

age (c. 891); the right of the faithful to have an individual celebration of the Eucharist or

limits on the number of concelebrants when their welfare requires or suggests it (c. 902);


the right of every baptized person to be admitted to Holy Communion unless prohibited by

law (c. 912); the right of the faithful to receive Holy Communion within and outside the

Mass (c. 918); the right of the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and receive

Holy Communion in any Catholic rite (c. 923); the right of the faithful to have access to

churches to pray before the Blessed Sacrament at least for some hours of the day (c. 937);

the right to have their confessions heard in a confessional or outside it for a just cause

(c. 964); the right not to be refused absolution in the sacrament of penance when they are

properly disposed (c. 980); rights concerning the sacramental seal and the external forum

use of knowledge acquired in the sacrament of penance (cc. 983, 984); and the right to

celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation on a regular basis (c. 986).

A considerable number of canons are devoted to the right to the sacraments in

danger of death situations. This is especially the case with respect to baptism and penance

which are necessary for salvation. In necessity, anyone with the right intention may be the

minister of baptism (c. 861, §2) and, in danger of death, any priest may hear a penitent’s

confession (c. 976). Although confirmation is not necessary for salvation, the law also

grants the faculty to any presbyter to confirm the faithful in danger of death (c. 883, 3°).

Several canons imply rights to the sacraments by the faithful and catechumens in

danger of death situations. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay

(c. 867, §2), and an infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is licitly

baptized in danger of death even against the will of the parents (c. 868, §2). An adult in

danger of death can be baptized without observing the full catechumenate if he or she has

some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, manifests in any way the intention to


be baptized, and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion (c. 865,

§2). This latter right is worded explicitly (baptizari potest).

In danger of death, the faithful have a right to receive the sacrament of confirmation

even if they have not yet reached the age of discretion (c. 891). Furthermore, young

children have the right to receive the Holy Eucharist in danger of death, if they can

distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive Communion reverently

(c. 913, §2). The faithful have the right to receive Holy Viaticum at the time of their death

(c. 921, §1) when they are fully conscious (c. 922). In danger of death, they have the right

to make confession to and have censures remitted by any priest (cc. 976, 986, §2), even by

one who has lost the clerical state or by one who was an accomplice in a sin against the

sixth commandment (c. 977). With respect to the anointing of the sick, the faithful have

the right to the sacrament at the beginning of an infirmity that puts them in danger (c. 1004).

Book IV of the Code has a number of canons which affirm rights to preparation and

formation for the sacraments. The faithful have the right to the ministry of the divine word

to arouse and enlighten their faith (c. 836); the right to be taught how to baptize in danger

of death or other necessity (c. 861, §2); the right to suitable preparation for confirmation

(c. 889, §2); the right to receive confirmation at the appropriate time with proper instruction

(c. 890); the right of children to be prepared for the reception of first penance and Holy

Communion as soon as possible after they have attained the use of reason (c. 914); and the

right to be educated about the appropriate time to receive the anointing of the sick (c. 1001),

namely, when a person begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age (c. 1004, §1).

The Code also has rights concerning Church funerals. In c. 1177, three such rights

are accorded. The faithful have the right to the celebration of the funeral rites of the Church


in their own parish, the right to request a funeral in another church, and the right to a funeral

in the parish in which death occurred in keeping with the conditions of the third paragraph

of that canon. They have these same rights even if they are unable to pay the usual required

offering (c. 1181). Catechumens, moreover, have the same rights as the faithful with

respect to Church funerals (c. 1183, §1).

Finally, with respect to rights concerning churches, the Code implicitly gives five

rights to the faithful: the right to be enriched in their spiritual life by the display in churches

of sacred images in moderate number and in suitable order (c. 1188), the explicit right of

entry to a church especially for the public exercise of divine worship (c. 1214), the right to

free and gratuitous entry to a church during the time of sacred celebrations (c. 1221), and

the right not to have their church relegated to profane use unless there are grave causes and

the procedures of the law are observed (c. 1222, §2).

177

CHAPTER FOUR

RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL IN THE MUNUS REGENDI

The office of governing, or ruling (munus regendi), consists of all the Church’s

activities other than those of the teaching and sanctifying offices. It includes Church

governance, financial administration, and many apostolic activities. The entire body of

canon law, including the two Codes, pertains to this munus regendi. As explained in the

Introduction to this work, this final chapter focuses on two areas of the Code in which the

faithful have explicit and implicit rights in the munus regendi. These are in Book II of the

Code, titled “The People of God” (De Populo Dei),575 and in Book V, “The Temporal

Goods of the Church” (De bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus).576 Other rights of the munus

regendi common to the christifideles are found in Books I, VI, and VII of the Code

(Appendices One and Two).

This chapter has two major sections. The first considers the rights common to all

the faithful in Book II of the Code, apart from the rights at the beginning of the Book that

were already treated above in Chapter One. The second section is on the rights of all the

faithful in Book V of the Code.

575 The people are the Church. The baptized and believing people, who are in communion with

Christ and with one another, constitute the Church in the world. They are God’s children, the Holy Spirit

dwells in them; their goal is God’s kingdom. The Christian faithful are, quite properly, the first and foremost

subject in this book, “The People of God.” 576Book V is devoted to the acquisition, retention, administration, and alienation of temporal goods.

Consisting of only fifty-seven canons, it is the shortest of the seven books of the Code of Canon Law.

Temporal goods, in contrast to spiritual goods, are those which have economic value. They include real estate,

personal property, money, securities, entitlements, etc. The Catholic Church has the right to acquire, retain,

administer and alienate, to conduct divine worship, to provide for the support of its ministers, and to perform

the works of the apostolate and of charity (c. 1254). This canon speaks about the need for stewardship and

accountability. Ecclesiasticalproperty is cared for by office holders, e.g., bishops of dioceses, pastors of

parishes, superiors of religious houses. They are the stewards of the goods; the properties are entrusted to

their supervision, and they are held responsible for their safekeeping, maintenance and disposition.

Chapter 4: Rights in Books II & V 178

4.1 The People of God

The usage of the word people has different meanings, but in the Church its emphasis

is on all the members of the Christian faithful who have a fundamental equality and

common purpose (cf. c. 204).577 There are three major divisions in Book II: Part One,

“The Christian Faithful” (the christifideles, cc. 204–329); Part Two, “The Hierarchical

Constitution of the Church” (cc. 330–572); and Part Three, “Institutes of Consecrated

Life and Societies of Apostolic Life” (cc. 573–746). Our concern here will be with the

canons in Part One and Part Two on the Christian faithful and the hierarchical

constitution of the Church respectively. Although there are some explicit and implicit

rights in the third part, they are not germane to our study since they pertain only to certain

members of the faithful who belong to institutes of consecrated life and societies of

apostolic life. The canons of the first two parts of Book Two (apart from Title I) that

contain rights common to all the faithful are Part I, Title V, on associations of the faithful

and Part II, Section II, Title III onthe diocese and the parish. This first section of the chapter

will deal with twenty implicit rights related to associations of the faithful, the diocese, the

parish, and diocesan and parish registers.

4.1.1 Associations of the faithful

Several canons on associations contain explicit rights of all the faithful. One of

these is the fundamental right to found and direct associations (c. 215), as already treated

above in Chapter One. The other is c. 299, §1 on the freedom of all the faithful (integrum

est Christifidelibus) to establish a private association for the purposes indicated in c. 298,

577 See J. FORNÉS, Commentary on Book II: People of God, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 4.


§1.578 These purposes are “to foster a more perfect life, to promote public worship or

Christian doctrine, or to exercise other works of the apostolate such as initiatives of

evangelization, works of piety or charity, and those which animate the temporal order with

a Christian spirit.” Two other canons also give explicit rights, cc. 309 and 310, but these

are treated below because they need a fuller explanation. The other rights of the faithful

pertaining to associations are implicit in the canons that follow.

Rights of membership

Canon 306. In order for a person to possess the rights and privileges of an

association and the indulgences and other spiritual favors granted to the

same association, it is necessary and sufficient that the person has been

validly received into it and has not been legitimately dismissed from it

according to the prescripts of law and the proper statutes of the

association.579

Canon 306 expresses that a person is “validly received” into an association in

accordance with the law and its statutes. Lawful membership in an association is necessary

in order to enjoy the various rights like: the right to participate in ordinary and

extraordinary meetings, the right to be duly summoned, the right to submit motions in

meetings, the right to be heard, the right to vote, the right to have an active and passive

voice in the elections, etc. Also, privileges, indulgences and other spiritual benefits granted

to an association are benefits enjoyed by a validly admitted member who has not been

lawfully dismissed.580 Implicit in the canon, therefore, is the right of members to enjoy all

578 Cf. CIC, c. 299, §1. Integrum est christifidelibus, privata inter se conventione inita,

consociationes constituere ad fines de quibus in can. 298, §1 persequendos, firmo praescripto can. 301, §1. 579 Cf. CIC, c. 306. Ut quis consociationis iuribus atque privilegiis, indulgentiis aliisque gratiis

spiritualibus eidem consociationi concessis fruatur, necesse est et sufficit ut secundum iuris praescripta et

propria consociationis statuta, in eandem valide receptus sit et ab eandem non sit legitime dimissus. 580 See L.F. NAVARRO, Commentary on c. 306, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 476; cf. ID., “The

Typical Forms of the Association of the Faithful,” in Philippiniana Sacra, 37 (2002), 279-295l. See also

J. ABBASS., “Associations of the Christian Faithful in CIC and CCEO,” in Apollinaris, 73 (2000), 227-244;

R.W. OLIVER., “Canonical Requisites for Establishing Associations for the Faithful,” in The Jurist, 61 (2001),


the rights and privileges and other benefits of the association in virtue of their valid

membership.

Right to multiple memberships

Canon 307 §2. The same person can be enrolled in several associations.581

This canon is not, strictly speaking, a right but a capability: one and the same person

is capable of being a member of several associations. Thus, the faithful have a certain

amount of freedom in choosing to join several associations according to their needs and

preferences.582 Implicit in the canon, moreover, is the right not to be rejected for

membership in one association solely for the reason of one’s membership in another

association, unless this is established in the statutes or when such dual membership is

physically or morally incompatible.

Right not to be dismissed unlawfully

Canon 308. No one legitimately enrolled is to be dismissed from an

association except for a just cause according to the norm of law and the

statutes.583

By becoming a member of an association, an individual acquires the rights and

privileges that belong to membership. According to c. 308, a member can be deprived of

membership or dismissed only for a proportionately just cause, and this must be done in

accordance with the norm of law and the statutes of the association. Thus, there is an

implicit right not to be dismissed from the association except for a just cause according to

213-318; R. PAGÉ., “Associations of Christ's Faithful: Selected Issues,” in The Jurist, 62 (2002), 294-311;

and ID., “Les associations des fidèles: reconnaissance et érection,” in Studia canonica, 19 (1985), 327-338. 581 Cf. CCEO, c. 578, §2; CIC, c. 307, §2. Eadem persona adscribi potest pluribus consociationibus. 582 See L.M. SISTACH, Associations of Christ’s Faithful, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2008, 79

(=SISTACH, Associations of Christ’s Faithful). 583 Cf. CCEO, c. 581; CIC, c. 308. Nemo legitime adscriptus a consociatione dimittatur, nisi iusta

de causa ad normam iuris et statutorum.


the norm of law and the statutes. It would be wise for the association to specify in the

statutes what causes will justify a dismissal and the procedures that will lead to it.584

Rights of governance

Canon 309. According to the norm of law and the statutes, legitimately

established associations have the right to issue particular norms respecting

the association itself, to hold meetings, and to designate moderators,

officials, other officers, and administrators of goods.585

Canon 309 affirms that all “legitimately established” associations of the faithful

enjoy autonomy in managing their own internal affairs in accordance with the norm of law

and their statutes. Thus, the present canon asserts explicitly that associations have this right

(ius est) to issue particular norms regarding the association, to hold meetings, to designate

moderators, officials, and administrators of goods. In keeping with c. 310 (treated below),

these rights pertain jointly to the individual faithful who belong to a private association,

not to the association as such which lacks standing in canon law unless it has been

established as a juridic person. Accordingly, this is an explicit right of all the christifideles

who may join a private association of the faithful.

Contractual rights

Canon 310. A private association which has not been established as a

juridic person cannot, as such, be a subject of obligations and rights.

Nevertheless, the members of the Christian faithful associated together in it

can jointly contract obligations and can acquire and possess rights and

goods as co-owners and co-possessors; they are able to exercise these rights

and obligations through an agent or a proxy.586

584 See R. PAGÉ, Commentary on c. 308, in CLSA Comm2, 407. 585 Cf. CIC, c. 309. Consociationibus legitime constitutis ius est, ad normam iuris et statutorum,

edendi peculiares normas ipsam consociationem respicientes, celebrandi comitia, designandi moderatores,

officiales, ministros atque bonorum administratores. 586 Cf. CIC, c. 310. Consociatio privata quae uti persona iuridica non fuerit constituta, qua talis

subiectum esse non potest obligationum et iurium; christifideles tamen in ea consociati coniunctim

obligationes contrahere atque uti condomini et compossessores iura et bona acquirere et possidere possunt;

quae iura et obligationes per mandatarium seu procuratorem exercere valent.


Canon 310 says that a private association which does not enjoy juridic personality

is not and cannot be the subject of rights and obligations, including the ownership of

temporal goods and the contracting of debts and other obligations. However, the individual

members of such an association can be and are the subjects of such rights and obligations.

There are two explicit rights in the canon. The christifideles who are members of the

association can (possunt) contract obligations and acquire and possess rights and goods as

co-owners and co-possessors; and they are able (valent) to exercise these rights and

obligations through an agent or a proxy. Thus, the temporal goods of the association are

canonically the property of the individual members, who are responsible for any liabilities.

As joint owners and joint possessors, they can possess rights and goods, and they can

exercise these rights and obligations through a delegate or a proxy. This most likely will

be the only way the association can act, unless all the members act together.587 Evidently,

there may also be applicable civil laws which allow the association itself to function in a

civil capacity, so this limitation of the canon law may have little practical effect on the

association’s operations.

Right to self-direction

Canon 321. The Christian faithful guide and direct private associations

according to the prescripts of the statutes.588

Canon 321 puts forth an important principle that private associations have their own

autonomy and are governed by the faithful according to their proper statutes. Christ’s

faithful direct and moderate private associations according to the prescripts of the statutes.

587 See PAGÉ, Commentary on c. 310, in CLSA Comm2, 408; R.J. BARRETT, “The Non-recognized

Association and Its Capacity to Act in Court,” in Periodica, 86 (1997), 677-711; ID., “The Non-recognized

Association and Its Capacity to Act in Court [Part II],” in Periodica, 87 (1998), 39-79. 588 Cf. CIC, c. 321. Consociationes privata christifideles secundum statutorum praescripta dirigunt

et moderantur.


The statutes of an association are constituted as its proper law. They are the norms

regulating the life of the association. The statutes bind everyone in the association who are

the legitimate members (c. 94, §2). It is imperative, then, to elaborate in the statutes how

the association will be directed. This canon acknowledges the right and competency of the

faithful to guide and direct private associations.589 The canon is worded as a statement of

fact, but implicit in this statement is the right of the faithful to guide and direct their own

private associations.

4.1.2 The diocese

All the faithful acquire an ordinary, and therefore belong to a diocese or other

particular Church, by virtue of their place of domicile or quasi-domicile or, in the case of

transients (vagi), in the place where they are staying (c. 107). The rights of the faithful at

the diocesan level are, for the most part, implicit in the numerous canonical obligations of

the diocesan bishop, as treated in the following canons. This does not mean that the

diocesan bishop or his equivalent must personally fulfill all these responsibilities but, as

head of the particular Church, he is charged with seeing that they are done.

Right of the Eastern faithful

Canon 383 §1. In exercising the function of a pastor, a diocesan bishop is

to show himself concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to his care,

of whatever age, condition, or nationality they are, whether living in the

territory or staying there temporarily; he is also to extend an apostolic spirit

to those who are not able to make sufficient use of ordinary pastoral care

because of the condition of their life and to those who no longer practice

their religion.

§2. If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for

their spiritual needs either through priests or parishes of the same rite or

through an episcopal vicar.

§3. He is to act with humanity and charity toward the brothers and sisters

who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church and is to foster

ecumenism as it is understood by the Church.

589 See J.A. FUENTES, Commentary on c. 321, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 529.


§4. He is to consider the non-baptized as committed to him in the Lord, so

that there shines on them the charity of Christ whose witness a bishop must

be before all people.590

Canon 383 identifies some of the specific groups who are the subjects of the

pastoral care of a diocesan bishop: Catholics (even those of another sui iuris Church),

baptized non-Catholic Christians, and the non-baptized. The Directory on the Pastoral

Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum successores,591 in discussing the munus regendi of the

diocesan bishop, points out various aspects of his pastoral ministry.592

In the first paragraph of the canon, the emphasis is laid on the diocesan bishop to

show concern for all Christian faithful present in his diocese even if they are there

temporarily. He is to extend his care to those who are unable to make sufficient use of

ordinary pastoral care because of their condition and those who no longer practice their

religion. The second paragraph emphasizes that the diocesan bishop is to be concerned with

the faithful of different rites and provide spiritual care to them. The third paragraph exhorts

the bishop to be humble and charitable. The final paragraph invites the diocesan bishop to

590 Cf. CCEO, c. 192, §1; 193, §2; 678, §2; 192, §3; CIC, c. 383, §1. In exercendo munere pastoris,

Episcopus dioecesanus sollicitum se praebeat erga omnes christifideles qui suae curae committuntur, cuiusvis

sint aetatis, condicionis vel nationis, tum in territorio habitantes tum in eodem ad tempus versantes, animum

intendens apostolicum ad eos etiam qui ob vitae suae condicionem ordinaria cura pastorali non satis frui

valeant necnon ad eos qui a religionis praxi defecerint.

§2. Fideles diversi ritus in sua dioecesi si habeat, eorum spiritualibus necessitatibus provideat sive

per sacerdotes aut paroecias eiusdem ritus, sive per Vicarium episcopalem.

§3. Erga fratres, qui in plena communione cum Ecclesia catholica non sint, cum humanitate et

caritate se gerat, oecumenismum quoque fovens prout ab Ecclesia intellegitur.

§4. Commendatos sibi in Domino habeat non baptizatos, utetipsis caritas eluceat Christi, cuius testis

coram omnibus Episcopus esse debet. 591 CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS, Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops Apostolorum

successores, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004 (=Apostolorum successores). 592 Various aspects of the pastoral concern of the bishop are identified in Apostolorum successores:

works of charity (193-197); social services and voluntary services (198-2000; the family (202); adolescents

and young people (203); workers and laborers (204); the suffering (205); emigrants (206a); dispersed groups

of the faithful (206b); and military personnel (206c). See J.A. RENKEN, Particular Churches and the

Authority Established in Them, Commentary on Canons 368-430, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul

University, 2011, 103 (=RENKEN, Particular Churches).


consider the non-baptized committed to him in the Lord and show Christ-like charity to

them.593

The canon mainly consists of exhortations, not specific obligations of the bishop in

exercising his pastoral role (munus pastorale). A right is implied, however, in the second

paragraph, namely, the right of the faithful of Eastern Churches sui iuris who reside in the

territory of the diocese to have their spiritual needs provided for by the Latin bishop when

nothing else has been arranged by the competent authority of their own Church sui iuris or

by the Holy See.594

Rights to the ministry of the word

Canon 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound

to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be

believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of

the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and

catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian

doctrine is handed on to all.

§2. Through more suitable means, he is firmly to protect the integrity and

unity of the faith to be believed, while nonetheless acknowledging a just

freedom in further investigating its truths.595

The two paragraphs of c. 386 distinguish two aspects of the pastoral work of the

diocesan bishop regarding the proclamation and teaching of the faith by means of preaching

and his vigilance over the unity and integrity of the faith and morals.596 The canon focuses

593 See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 383, in CLSA Comm2, 522. 594 See J. ABBASS, “Latin Bishops’ Duty of Care toward Eastern Catholics,” in Studia canonica, 35

(2001), 7-32; ID., “Canonical Dispositions for the Care of Eastern Catholics outside Their Territory,” in

Periodica de re canonica, 86 (1997), 330-346. 595 Cf. CCEO, c, 196; CIC, c. 386, §1. Veritates fidei credendas et moribus applicandas Episcopus

dioecesanus fidelibus proponere et illustrare tenetur, per se ipse frequenter praedicans; curet etiam ut

praescripta canonum de ministerio verbi, de homilia praesertim et catechetica institutione sedulo serventur,

ita ut universa doctrina christiana omnibus tradatur.

§2. Integritatem et unitatem fidei credendae mediis, quae aptiora videantur, firmiter tueatur, iustam

tamen libertatem agnoscens in veritatibus ulterius perscrutandis. 596 See J.L. GUTIÉRREZ, Commentary on c. 386, in CCLA, 332; cf. J.A., CORIDEN, “The Teaching

Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop and its Collaborative Exercise,” in The Jurist, 68 (2008), 382-407; J. TOBIN,

“The Diocesan Bishop as Moderator of the Entire Ministry of the Word,” CLSANZ Proceedings, (1988), 51-

84.


on the exercise of the ministry of the divine word by the bishop, which entails his duty to

teach doctrine and to preach personally and to enforce the canons on preaching (cc. 762-

772) and catechetical instruction (cc. 773-780). These twofold duties of the bishop imply

that the faithful have the corresponding rights entailed in them: the right to preaching by

the bishop in person; the right to have the bishop teaching on matters of faith and morals;

the right to the observance of the canons on the ministry of divine word, especially

preaching and catechetics; the right to have the integrity and unity of their faith protected

by the bishop; and the right that he at the same time respect their just freedom of inquiry.597

Right to the means of sanctification

Canon 387. Since the diocesan bishop is mindful of his obligation to show

an example of holiness in charity, humility, and simplicity of life, he is to

strive to promote in every way the holiness of the Christian faithful

according to the proper vocation of each. Since he is the principal dispenser

of the mysteries of God, he is to endeavor constantly that the Christian

faithful entrusted to his care grow in grace through the celebration of the

sacraments and that they understand and live the paschal mystery.598

The canon briefly emphasizes the duty of the bishop to exercise the sanctifying

office in his diocese. He has this special obligation to promote the holiness of the Christian

faithful.599 This canon is a summary of the Church’s teaching on the vocation of the faithful

to holiness and the means of achieving this and is applied to the episcopal exercise of the

sanctifying office within the diocese.600 There are no specific rights of the faithful implied

597 See A. DE LA HERA, Commentary on c. 386, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 796. 598 Cf. CCEO, c. 197; CIC, c. 387. Episcopus dioecesanus, cum memor sit se obligatione teneri

exemplum sanctitatis praebendi in caritate, humilitate et vitae simplicitate, omni ope promovere studeat

sanctitatem christifidelium secundum uniuscuiusque propriam vocationem atque, cum sit praecipuus

mysteriorum Dei dispensator, iugiter annitatur ut christifideles suae curae commissi sacramentorum

celebratione in gratia crescent utque paschale mysterium cognoscant et vivant. 599 See RENKEN, Particular Churches, 140. Cf. V. CRUZ, “Bishops are Proclaimers of Justice,” in

Philippine Canonical Forum, 10 (2008), 251-271; and T.J. GREEN, “The Church’s Sanctifying Mission:

Some Aspects of the Normative Role of the Diocesan Bishop,” in Studia canonica, 25(1991), 245-

276. 600 See DE LA HERA, Commentary on c. 387, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 799.


in the exhortation of the canon but, just generally, the right to the various dimensions of

the munus sanctificandi to assist their growth in holiness as discussed in the previous

chapter.

Right to the Missa pro populo

Canon 388 §1. After the diocesan bishop has taken possession of the

diocese, he must apply a Mass for the people entrusted to him each Sunday

and on the other holy days of obligation in his region.

§2. The bishop himself must personally celebrate and apply a Mass for the

people on the days mentioned in §1. If he is legitimately impeded from this

celebration, however, he is to apply the Masses either on the same days

through another or on other days himself.

§3. A bishop to whom other dioceses besides his own have been entrusted,

even under title of administration, satisfies the obligation by applying one

Mass for all the people entrusted to him.

§4. A bishop who has not satisfied the obligation mentioned in §§1-3 is to

apply as soon as possible as many Masses for the people as he has

omitted.601

Canon 388 is the obligation of the diocesan bishop to celebrate the Missa pro

populo, namely, to apply a Mass for the intention of the people each Sunday and holy day

of obligation. It is a strict legal obligation (debet applicare), which implies the strict right

of the faithful to it. This may be seen as one of the ways that the diocesan bishop seeks to

promote the holiness of his faithful through the celebration of the sacraments (c. 387),

especially through the Eucharist.602 In addition, the faithful have the right implied in the

601 Cf. CCEO, c, 198; CIC, c. 388, §1. Episcopus dioecesanus, post captam dioecesis possessionem,

debet singulis diebus dominicis aliisque diebus festis de praecepto in sua regione Missam pro populo sibi

commisso applicare.

§2. Episcopus Missam pro populo diebus, die quibus in, §1, per se ipse celebrare et applicare debet;

si vero ab hac celebration legitimeimpediatur, iisdem diebus per alium, vel aliis diebus per se ipse applicet.

§3. Episcopus cui praeter propriam dioecesim aliae, titulo etiam administrationis, sunt commissae,

obligationi satisfacit unam Missam pro universe populo sibi commisso applicando.

§4. Episcopus qui obligationi, de qua in §§ 1-3, non satisfecerit, quam primum pro populo tot Missas

applicet quot omiserit. 602 See DE LA HERA, Commentary on c. 388, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 801.


second paragraph of the canon that the bishop personally celebrate and apply (celebrare et

applicare debet) the Missa pro populous unless he is legitimately impeded.603

Rights to common discipline and vigilance

Canon 392 §1. Since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a

bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and

therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2. He is to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical

discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of

the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of

the saints, and the administration of goods.604

This canon specifies two obligations on the diocesan bishop. First, so as to defend

the unity of the universal Church, he is bound (tenetur) to promote the common discipline

of the whole Church and thus to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws (cf. cc. 12-

13).605 Second, he is to exercise vigilance (advigilet) so that abuses do not creep into

ecclesiastical discipline, especially in the areas indicated in the second paragraph. If there

is any chance of abuses, the salus animarum directly comes into play. Implied in these

obligations of the bishop is the right of the faithful to the maintenance of Church discipline

throughout the diocese by the enforcement of applicable universal and particular laws.606

Rights to various forms of apostolate and apostolic works

Canon 394 §1. A bishop is to foster various forms of the apostolate in the

diocese and is to take care that in the entire diocese or in its particular

603 See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 388, in CLSA Comm2, 526; and U. NAVARRETE., “Missapro

populo et stips alterius Missae eadem die celebratae (c. 951 §1),” in Periodica de re canonica, 77(1988),

497-510. 604 Cf. CCEO, c. 198; CIC, c. 392, §1. Ecclesiae universae unitatem cum tueri debeat, Episcopus

disciplinam cunctae Ecclesiae commune promovere et ideo observantiam omnium legum ecclesiasticarum

urgere tenetur.

§2. Advigilet ne abusus in ecclesiasticam disciplinam irrepant, praesertim circa ministerium verbi,

celebrationem sacramentorum et sacramentalium, cultum Dei et Sanctorum, necnon bonorum

administrationem. 605 See RENKEN, Particular Churches, 169. See also T.J. GREEN., “Selected Issues in Developing

Structures of Diocesan Communion,” in The Jurist, 69 (2009), 418-441. 606 See V. GÓMEZ-IGLESIAS, Commentary on c. 392, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 818. See also P.

ARTNER, “Disciplinary Measures outside Book VI of the 1983 CIC,” in Studia canonica, 42 (2008), 473-

502.


districts, all the works of the apostolate are coordinated under his direction,

with due regard for the proper character of each.

§2. He is to insist upon the duty which binds the faithful to exercise the

apostolate according to each one’s condition and ability and is to exhort

them to participate in and assist the various works of the apostolate

according to the needs of place and time.607

Canon 394 lays an obligation on the diocesan bishop to foster various forms of

apostolate in his diocese. He is to coordinate the works of the apostolate under his direction,

with due regard for the proper character of each one. He is to exhort and invite the faithful

to participate in and exercise the apostolate according to the various needs of place and

time.608 The bishop’s duty is to discern and protect the various services present in his

Church. He must base his ministry on the principles of the unity of faith and governance,

the division of apostolic tasks and offices, sincere mutual assistance and

complementarity.609 However, he is to respect the identity and character of each apostolate

as he promotes both their unity and diversity.610 Implied in all this is the right of the faithful

to apostolic works organized and overseen by the diocese under the supervision of the

bishop.

Right to physical presence of the diocesan bishop in the diocese

Canon 395 §1. Even if a diocesan bishop has a coadjutor or auxiliary, he is

bound by the law of personal residence in the diocese.

§2. Apart from ad limina visits, councils, synods of bishops, conferences of

bishops which he must attend, or some other duty legitimately entrusted to

him, he can be absent from his diocese for a reasonable cause but not beyond

607 Cf. CCEO, c. 190; CIC, c. 394, §1. Varias apostolatus rationes in dioecesi foveat Episcopus,

atque curet ut in universa dioecesi, vel in eiusdem particularibus districtibus, omnia apostolatus opera, servata

uniuscuiusque propria indole, sub suo moderamine coordinentur.

§2. Urgeat officium, quo tenentur fideles ad apostolatum pro sua cuiusque condicione et aptitudine

exercendum, atque ipsos adhortetur ut varia opera apostolatus, secundum necessitates loci et temporis,

participent et iuvent. 608 See V. GÓMEZ-IGLESIAS, Commentary on c. 394, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 823. 609 See G. GHIRLANDA, “Movements within the Ecclesial Communion and Their Rightful

Autonomy,” in Christi fideles laici: Comments and Reflections, Vatican City, Pontifical Council for the Laity,

The Laity Today, 32-33 (1989-90), 52. 610 See GÓMEZ-IGLESIAS, Commentary on c. 394, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 823.


a month, whether continuous or interrupted, and provided that he makes

provision so that the diocese will suffer no detriment from his absence.

§3. He is not to be absent from the diocese on Christmas, during Holy Week,

and on Easter, Pentecost, and the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ,

except for a grave and urgent cause.

§4. If a bishop has been illegitimately absent from the diocese for more than

six months, the metropolitan is to inform the Apostolic See of his absence;

if it concerns the metropolitan, the senior suffragan is to do so.611

Canon 395 is about the obligation of residence. The diocesan bishop has a personal

obligation (tenetur lege) to reside in the diocese even if he has a coadjutor or auxiliary

bishop,612 with the exceptions noted in the canon.613 The pastoral care and work of the

diocese requires the bishop’s physical presence so that he can personally and actively

perform his many responsibilities in his particular Church.614 As the canon expounds, only

a grave and urgent reason can justify the bishop’s absence from his diocese on the days of

major solemnities: Christmas, Holy Week and Easter Sunday, Pentecost and Corpus Christi

611 Cf. CCEO, c. 204; CIC, c. 395, §1. Episcopus dioecesanus, etiamsi coadiutorem aut auxiliarem

habeat, tenetur lege personalis in dioecesi residentiae.

§2. Praeterquam causa visitationis Sacrorum Liminum, vel Conciliorum, Episcoporum synodi,

Episcoporum conferentiae, quibus interesse debet, aliusve officii sibi legitime commissi, a dioecesi aequa de

causa abesse potest nonultra mensem, sive continuum sive intermissum, dummodo cautum sit ne ex eius

absentia dioecesis quidquam detrimenti capiat.

§3. A dioecesi ne absit diebus Nativitatis, Hebdomadae Sanctae et Resurrectionis Domini,

Pentecostes et Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, nisi ex gravi urgentique causa.

§4. Si ultra sex menses Episcopus a dioecesi illegitime abfuerit, de eius absentia Metropolita Sedem

Apostolicam certiorem faciat; quod si agatur de Metropolita, idem faciat antiquior suffraganeus. 612 The obligation of residency also binds others in the Code: the coadjutor bishop (c. 410), the

auxiliary bishop (c. 395), the diocesan administrator (c. 429), the parochus (c. 533), and the priests to whom

is entrusted a parish(es) in solidum (c. 543, §2, 1º), and the parochial vicar (c. 550). See RENKEN, Particular

Churches and the Authority, 177. 613 The presence of a bishop at gatherings of the conference of bishops is justified when the

conference’s statutes state a given bishop must be present. A superior authority may also confer

another office on a bishop occasioning his absence from the diocese. Finally, a bishop should count

his vacation time within the month-long period of his absence from the diocese. Also within this

month, he would include such things as: giving retreats outside the diocese to persons not from his

diocese, attending lectures or conferences, meetings of various regional or national groups (associ -

ations, movements, etc.), visiting foreign missions, leading religious and cultural pilgrima ges not

organized by the diocese, etc. The document insists that bishops exhibit their solicitude for all the

Church best when they minister well to the people of their own particular Churches. See PONTIFICAL

COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, explanatory note Obbligo del vescovo di risidere in diocese (circa il

canone 395 CIC), 12 September 1996, prot. no. 5125/96, in Communicationes, 28 (1996), 182-186. 614 See J. PROVOST, “Canonical Reflections on Selected Issues in Diocesan Governance,” in

J.K. MALLETT (ed.), The Ministry of Governance, Washington, 1986, 209.


(c. 395, §3). On these days, he may be anywhere in the diocese but not outside its territorial

boundaries. Finally, in case of an illegitimate absence of the diocesan bishop for over six

months, the metropolitan must inform the Apostolic See and, if the absent party is the

metropolitan, the senior suffragan is to do the same (c. 395, §4).615 The strict legal

obligation of residence implies the right of the faithful to the physical presence of their

bishop for the fulfillment of his obligations and thus the fulfillment of their rights in the

diocesan Church.

Right to have the canonical visit by the diocesan bishop

Canon 396 §1. A bishop is obliged to visit the diocese annually either in

whole or in part, so that he visits the entire diocese at least every five years

either personally or, if he has been legitimately impeded, through the

coadjutor bishop, an auxiliary, vicar general, episcopal vicar, or another

presbyter.

§2. A bishop is permitted to choose the clerics he prefers as companions

and assistants on a visitation; any contrary privilege or custom is

reprobated.616

Canon 396 is on the strict obligation of the diocesan bishop (tenetur obligatione) to

make the canonical visitation of institutions and persons in his diocese. According to

Valentín Gómez-Iglesias, this pastoral visit meets two fundamental needs of the munus

pastorale of the bishop: a) it gives the bishop first-hand information in detail on the state

of the diocese, and this information helps him approach certain diverse situations and take

some concrete solutions and measures of governance; and b) it affords him the opportunity

to encourage each of the Christian faithful according to his or her condition (c. 208) by

615 See GÓMEZ-IGLESIAS, Commentary on c. 395, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 829. 616 Cf. CCEO, c. 205, §1; CIC, c. 396, §1. Tenetur Episcopus obligatione dioecesis vel ex toto vel

ex parte quotannis visitandae, ita ut singulis saltem quinquenniis universam dioecesim, ipse per se vel, si

legitime fuerit impeditus, per Episcopum coadiutorem, aut per auxiliarem, aut per Vicarium generalem vel

episcopalem, aut per alium presbyterum visitet.

§2. Fas est Episcopo sibi eligere quos maluerit clericos in visitatione comites atque adiutores,

reprobate quocumque contrario privilegio vel consuetudine.


providing a mutual opportunity for them to meet and share their concerns. The bishop can

thereby directly show his appreciation for each one and support them in their role, mission,

obligations and rights.617 The obligation on the bishop to make the canonical visitation

implies the right of the faithful to it.

4.1.3 The parish

Canon 519 describes the pastor and his role.618 The pastor or parish priest

(parochus) is the proper pastor (pastor)619 who shares in the diocesan bishop’s ministry.620

Through the ministry of the parish, he carries out the munera of teaching, sanctifying, and

governing. He exercises these munera with the help of other presbyters621 and deacons,622

and with the assistance of the other members of the Christian faithful. The canon specifies

that the parish priest can and must have the collaboration of the other members of the

parochial community. Regarding the collaboration of the faithful in the munus of the

617 See GÓMEZ-IGLESIAS, Commentary on c. 396, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 832; see also

G.N. SMITH, “The Canonical Visitation Today,” in Periodica, 98 (2009), 643-661. 618 Cf. CCEO, c. 281, §1; CIC, c. 519. Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura

pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem

ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi,

cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad

normam iuris. 619 To define the parish priest as the proper pastor of the parish simply means that the immediate

pastoral care of the parochial community corresponds to him. It is a task that he performs under the authority

of the diocesan bishop and that fundamentally consists in the performance of the functions stated in cc. 528-

530. 620 The pastor is obliged always to carry out his duties under the authority of the diocesan bishop.

The diocesan bishop is like a father to the pastor; there is a paternal relationship that has both pastoral and

juridic dimensions. For an excellent study of the relationship between the diocesan bishop and his priests,

see A. MENDONÇA, “The Bishop as Father, Brother and Friend to His Priests,” in Philippine Canonical

Forum, 4 (2002), 75- 95. 621 Presbyters assisting the parochus are the parochial vicar (cc. 545-552) and, to some measure,

chaplains providing pastoral care to some community or particular group of Christian faithful within the

parish (cc. 564-572). 622 The Code does not assign a title or ecclesiastical office (c. 145, §1) to a deacon assigned to a

parish, but diocesan particular law could do so.


ordained ministers, the faithful do not enjoy a right to such tasks and functions, but rather

they are capable of being admitted to them by the sacred pastors.623

As seen in the previous section on the diocesan bishop, the canons likewise impose

certain obligations on the pastor, which in turn give rise to implicit rights of the faithful of

the parish. Although expressed only in three canons, these obligations and rights are fairly

numerous.

Rights to preaching and sacraments from pastors

Canon 528 §1. A pastor is obliged to make provision so that the word of

God is proclaimed in its entirety to those living in the parish; for this reason,

he is to take care that the lay members of the Christian faithful are instructed

in the truths of the faith, especially by giving a homily on Sundays and holy

days of obligation and by offering catechetical instruction. He is to foster

works through which the spirit of the gospel is promoted, even in what

pertains to social justice. He is to have particular care for the Catholic

education of children and youth. He is to make every effort, even with the

collaboration of the Christian faithful, so that the message of the gospel

comes also to those who have ceased the practice of their religion or do not

profess the true faith.

§2. The pastor is to see to it that the Most Holy Eucharist is the center of the

parish assembly of the faithful. He is to work so that the Christian faithful

are nourished through the devout celebration of the sacraments and, in a

special way, that they frequently approach the sacraments of the Most Holy

Eucharist and penance. He is also to endeavor that they are led to practice

prayer even as families and take part consciously and actively in the sacred

liturgy which, under the authority of the diocesan bishop, the pastor must

direct in his own parish and is bound to watch over so that no abuses creep

in.624

623 See A.S. SÁNCHEZ-GIL, Commentary on c. 519, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/2, 1287. SÁNCHEZ-

GIL says that, in any event, collaboration from the members of the parish community will always be

necessary, not only to help the parish priest in the exercise of his pastoral duties, but especially in the

performance of the evangelizing duty of the entire parish community. See ID., “L’apporto dei fedeli laici

all’esercizio della cura pastorale della comunità parrochiale,” in J.I. ARRIETA and G.P. MILANO (eds.),

Metodo, fonti e soggetti del diritto canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999, 1131-1146. 624 Cf. CCEO, c. 289; CIC, c. 528, §1. Parochus obligatione tenetur providendi ut Dei verbum integre

in paroecia degentibus annuntietur; quare curet ut christifideles laici in fidei veritatibus edoceantur,

praesertim homilia diebus dominicis et festis de praecepto habenda necnon catechetica institutione tradenda,

atque foveat opera quibus spiritus evangelicus, etiam ad iustitiam socialem quod attinet, promoveatur

peculiarem curam habeat de puerorum iuvenumque educatione catholica omni ope satagat, associate etiam

sibi christifidelium opera, ut nuntius evangelicus ad eos quoque perveniat, qui a religione colenda recesserint

aut veram fidem non profiteantur.


Canon 528 is on the duties of the pastor as minister of the Word and minister of

Sanctification. The first paragraph of the canon stresses the pastor’s responsibilities

regarding the teaching office.625 It begins with a strong legal obligation (obligatione

tenetur) to provide for the proclamation of the word of God. In paragraph two, exhortative

language is used at first, indicating more general obligations and ideals to be striven for. In

this paragraph, the emphasis is on the sanctifying functions of the pastor towards his

faithful.626 The last phrase of c. 528 §2 concerning the sacred liturgy requires that the pastor

must direct (moderari debet) the liturgy in the parish and “is bound (tenetur) to be vigilant

lest any abuses creep in.” This strong language indicates important obligations on the

pastor and concomitant rights of the faithful, as treated in the previous chapter.627

§2. Consulat parochus ut sanctissima Eucharistia centrum sit congregationis fidelium paroecialis;

allaboret ut christifideles per devotam sacramentorum celebrationem, pascantur, peculiarique modo ut

frequenter ad sanctissimae Eucharistiae et paenitentiae sacramenta accedant; annitatur item ut iidem ad

orationem etiam in familiis peragendam ducantur atque conscie et actuose partem habeant in sacra liturgia,

quam quidem, sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, parochus in sua paroecia moderari debet et, ne abusus

irrepant, invigilare tenetur. 625 This responsibility includes the proclaiming of the word of God and the preaching of Christian

doctrine (cc. 757, 762), the homily (c. 767-768) and catechetical instruction (cc. 773, 776-777). He is to foster

works which promote the spirit of the gospel, even in matters of social justice (c. 222, §2). He is to have

particular care for the Catholic education of children and youth (cc. 217, 229, 793–806). See. J.A. RENKEN,

Particular Churches: Their Internal Ordering: Commentary on Canons 460-572, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon

Law, Saint Paul University, 2011, 246-250; see also F.G. MORRISEY, “The Role of Law and the Exercise of

Authority within the Church, Particularly at the Parish Level,” in The Canonist, 6 (2015), 220-249. 626 This responsibility includes the sanctifying office of the pastor. There are several canons with

explicit reference to the pastor’s role in sanctifying his parishioners. The canons concern his role in baptism

(cc. 851, 2°; 855; 858, §2; 861, §2; 867, §1; 874, §1, 1°–2°; 877, §§1–2; 878; 1706); confirmation (cc. 883,

3°; 890; 895–896); the Eucharist (cc. 911; 914; 958, §1); penance (c. 968, §1); orders (cc. 1043, 1054);

marriage (cc. 1067; 1069–1070; 1079, §2; 1081; 1105, §2; 1106; 1108, §1; 1109–1110; 1111, §1; 1114–

1115; 1118, §1; 1121; 1122, §2; 1123; 1706); and funerals (c. 1177, §2).

A. BORRAS holds that there is a responsibility on the pastors and that the parochial community

constitutes a basic ordinary institutional context in which relationships of justice and charity are developed

daily between the pastors of the Church and the rest of the faithful. In “La notion du curé dans le Code de

droit canonique,” in Revue de Droit Canonique, 37 (1987), 225-227. 627 The importance of the pastor guarding against liturgical abuses was a serious consideration for

the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, which reviewed cc. 362-363 of the

Schema “De populo Dei” on May 8 and 9, 1980. In their discussions of cc. 362-363 of that Schema, which

would become cc. 528 and 530 of the 1983 Code, all of the consultors agreed that the strong statement of the

obligation proposed in c. 362, §2 should be retained. In addition, one of the consultors argued against the text


A number of implicit rights are contained in the lengthy c. 528. The faithful have

the right:

to be instructed in the truths of the faith through homilies and catechetical

instruction;

to have apostolic works through which the spirit of the gospel is promoted,

even in what pertains to social justice;

to have a Catholic education for the children and youth of the parish;

to have an outreach to those who have ceased the practice of their religion

or do not profess the true faith;

to have the Eucharist as the center of the parish assembly;

to be nourished through the devout celebration of the sacraments;

to have opportunities frequently to approach the sacraments of the Most

Holy Eucharist and penance;

to be led to the practice of prayer and take part consciously and actively in

the sacred liturgy; and

to have liturgical celebrations that are free of abuses.

Rights to pastoral care and charity from the pastors

Canon 529 §1. In order to fulfill his office diligently, a pastor is to strive to

know the faithful entrusted to his care. Therefore, he is to visit families,

sharing especially in the cares, anxieties, and griefs of the faithful,

strengthening them in the Lord, and prudently correcting them if they are

failing in certain areas. With generous love he is to help the sick, particularly

those close to death, by refreshing them solicitously with the sacraments

and commending their souls to God; with particular diligence he is to seek

out the poor, the afflicted, the lonely, those exiled from their country, and

similarly those weighed down by special difficulties. He is to work so that

spouses and parents are supported in fulfilling their proper duties and is to

foster growth of Christian life in the family.

§2. A pastor is to recognize and promote the proper part which the lay

members of the Christian faithful have in the mission of the Church, by

fostering their associations for the purposes of religion. He is to cooperate

with his own bishop and the presbyterium of the diocese, also working so

that the faithful have concern for parochial communion, consider

themselves members of the diocese and of the universal Church, and

participate in and sustain efforts to promote this same communion.628

of c. 363 because, in his view, the “reservation” of certain liturgical services to the pastor was the best way

to enable the pastor to forestall and avoid liturgical abuses. See Communicationes, 12 (1981), 280-282. 628 Cf. CCEO, c. 289, §3; CIC, c. 529 §1. Officium pastoris sedulo utadimpleat, parochus fideles

suae curae commissos cognoscere satagat; ideo familias visitet, fidelium sollicitudines, angores et luctus

praesertim participans eosque in Domino confortans necnon, si in quibusdam defecerint, prudenter corrigens;

aegrotos, praesertim morti proximos, effuse caritate adiuvet, eos sollicite sacramentis reficiendo eorumque

animas Deo commendando; peculiari diligentia prosequatur pauperes, afflictos, solitarios, e patria exsules


Canon 529 is about the responsibility and functions of the office of pastor in the

ministry of pastoral care, charitable and social outreach, and the fostering of wider

communion beyond the parish boundaries. The pastor is to strive to know his faithful, and

so he visits families; he shares parishioners’ cares, anxieties, and grifs; he strengthens

them and prudently corrects them as necessary. He is to have a generous love for the sick,

refreshing them with the sacraments and commending their souls to God. He seeks out the

poor, the afflicted, the lonely, the exiled, and all those weighed down by special difficulties.

He is to support spouses and parents in fulfilling their proper duties, and he fosters the

growth of the Christian family life. The second paragraph of the canon is an exhortation

on the communion of his parishioners with the diocese and universal Church, including

promoting the role of the laity in the mission of the Church (see cc. 208, 211, 224-231)

and fostering associations for the purposes of religion (see cc. 215; 223, § 1; 225, § 1; 327-

329).629

As with the obligations of the diocesan bishop, the pastor does not personally have

to fulfill all these goals and responsibilities, but he is in charge of seeing that the parish

offers such services to the extent possible. Since the language of the entire canon is purely

exhortative, there are no strict rights implicit in the canon. However, one may conclude

that all these ideals and goals, taken together, ought to be part of the parish life to a greater

itemque pecularibus difficultatibus gravatos; allaboret etiam ut coniuges et parentes ad officia propria

implenda sustineantur et in familia vitae christianae incrementum foveat.

§2. Partem quam christifideles laici in missione Ecclesiae propriam habent, parochus agnoscat et

promoveat, consociationes eorundem ad fines religionis fovendo. Cum proprio Episcopo et cum dioecesis

presbyterio cooperetur, allaborans etiam ut fideles communionis paroecialis curam habeant, iidemque tum

dioecesis tum Ecclesiae universae membra se sentient operaque ad eandem communionem promovendam

participant vel sustineant. 629 See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 529, in CLSA Comm2, 701; see also J.A. CORIDEN, “Parish

Pastoral Leaders: Canonical Structure and Practical Questions,” in The Jurist, 67 (2007), 461-484.


or lesser extent, and so the parishioners have the right that they not be entirely neglected.

Right to parish pastoral council

Canon 536 §1. If the diocesan bishop judges it opportune after he has heard

the presbyteral council, a pastoral council is to be established in each parish,

over which the pastor presides and in which the Christian faithful, together

with those who share in pastoral care by virtue of their office in the parish,

assist in fostering pastoral activity.

§2. A pastoral council possesses a consultative vote only and is governed

by the norms established by the diocesan bishop.630

Canon 536 says that the diocesan bishop, if he judges it opportune and after hearing

the presbyteral council, is to establish a pastoral council in every parish. If the bishop does

not mandate it, then such a council is not required in every parish.631 If mandated, the

faithful have the implied right to a pastoral council in their parish in which the members

enjoy a consultative vote. The faithful also have an implicit right that their pastoral council

be governed according to the regulations of diocesan law (regitur normis ab Episcopo

dioecesano statutis).

The pastoral council allows for collaboration in the parish between the pastor and

faithful.632 The members of the parish pastoral council share in parish’s pastoral care along

with other members of the Christian faithful.633 The parish council’s basic purpose is to

serve as an institutional channel for the collaboration of the faithful in the fostering of

630 Cf. CCEO, c. 295; CIC, c. 536, §1. Si, de iudicio Episcopi dioecesani, audito consilio

presbyterali, opportunum sit, in unaquaque paroecia constituatur consilium pastorale, cui parochus praeest et

in quo christifideles una cum illis qui curam pastoralem vi officii sui in paroecia participant, ad actionem

pastoralem fovendam suum adiutorium praestent.

§2. Consilium pastorale voto gaudet tantum consultivo et regitur normis ab Episcopo dioecesano

statutis. 631 See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 535, in CLSA Comm2, 710. 632 See SÁNCHEZ-GIL, Commentary on c. 536, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/2, 1345. 633 See RENKEN, Particular Churches, 283; see also K.S. SEBASTIAN, “Participation of the Laity in

the Decision-MakingStructures of the Church,” in Vidyajyoti, 66 (2002), 52-66.


pastoral activity. It is an appropriate instrument of communion between the parish priest

and all others who participate in the pastoral care of the parish.634

Right to parish finance council

Canon 537. In each parish there is to be a finance council which is

governed, in addition to universal law, by norms issued by the diocesan

bishop and in which the Christian faithful, selected according to these same

norms, are to assist the pastor in the administration of the goods of the

parish, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 532.635

Canon 537 mandates the establishment of a finance council in every parish. It is

composed of members of the Christian faithful who are selected to assist the pastor in the

administration of parochial goods. It is the pastor himself, however, who is the administrator

of the temporal goods. He represents the parish in all juridic matters and is to take care that

parochial goods are administered according to the norm of cc 1281-1288 (c. 532). Canon 537

is a specific application of the general provision of c. 1280 which says that every juridic

person is to have its own finance council or at least two counselors who assist the

administrator of the juridic person.636 The requirement of the finance council in every parish

implies the right of the parishioners to have one in order to assist the pastor in the

administration of the temporal goods of the parish.

634 See SÁNCHEZ-GIL, Commentary on c. 536, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/2, 1345; L. SPINELLI,

“Responsabiliti àparte cipata dei laici al consiglio pastorale,” in l’Année canonique, hors série 2 (1992), 827-

831. 635 Cf. CCEO, c. 295; CIC, c. 537. In unaquaque paroecia habeatur consilium a rebus oeconomicis,

quod praeterquam iure universali, regitur normis ab Episcopo dioecesano latis et in quo christifideles,

secundum easdem normas selecti, parocho in administratione bonorum paroecia adiutorio sint, firmo

praescripto can. 532. 636 See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 537, in CLSA Comm2, 710; see also J.A. JANICKI, Commentary

on c. 537, in CLSA Comm1, 433; K.S. SEBASTIAN, “Participation of the Laity in the Decision-Making

Structures of the Church,” in Vidyajyoti, 66 (2002), 52-66.


4.1.4 Diocesan and parish registers

Canon 487 §2. Interested parties have the right to obtain personally or

through a proxy an authentic written copy or photocopy of documents which

by their nature are public and which pertain to their personal status.637

Canon 487 is on the diocesan archives. The first paragraph says the archive must

be locked; no one may enter it except with the permission either of the bishop or of both

the moderator of the curia and the chancellor. This second paragraph of the canon explicitly

gives a right (ius) to interested persons personally or through a proxy to obtain an authentic

written copy or photocopy of the documents which pertain to their personal status (e.g.,

baptismal status, marriage status, status of appointments or removal from office, etc.).638

However, this right does not exist if the document is not of a public nature, even if only in

the regular archive and not the secret archive.639 It would be very helpful for the diocesan

bishop to identify in diocesan laws the documents which by their nature are public and

pertain to personal status.640

Right to secret archives

Canon 489 §2. Each year documents of criminal cases in matters of morals,

in which the accused parties have died or ten years have elapsed from the

condemnatory sentence, are to be destroyed. A brief summary of what

occurred along with the text of the definitive sentence is to be retained.641

Canon 489 is on the secret archive of the diocese in which sensitive documents are

kept and securely protected. The canon upholds the value and importance of keeping the

637 Cf. CCEO, c. 257, §2; CIC, c. 487, §2. Ius est iis quorum interest, documentorum, quae natura

sua sunt publica quaeque ad statum suae personae pertinent, documentum authenticum scriptum vel

photostaticum per se vel per procuratorem recipere. 638 See RENKEN, Particular Churches, 95; see also E. MCDONOUGH, “Archives of Religious

Communities,” in Review for Religious, 65 (2006), 323-327. 639 See J.I. ARRIETA, Commentary on c. 487, in CCLA, 405. 640 See B.A. CUSACK, Commentary on c. 487, in CLSA Comm2, 642. 641 Cf. CCEO, c. 259, §2; CIC, c. 489, §2. Singulis annis destruantur documenta causarum

criminalium in materia morum, quarum rei vita cesserunt aut quae a decennio sententia condemnatoria

absolutae sunt, retento facti brevi summario cum textu sententiae definitivae.


documents in greater security and destroying certain documents that have lost their

relevance either by time or after the accused parties have died. These are documents

pertaining to criminal cases in matters of morals. Still, a brief summary of what occurred

along with the text of the definitive sentence is to be retained. Thus, witness depositions,

briefs of the promoter of justice and advocate, police reports, press accounts, and so forth

would all be destroyed. This requirement of the law implies a right of the faithful, which

is a concrete expression of the fundamental right to privacy (c. 220).642

Right to historical archives

Canon 491 §1. A diocesan bishop is to take care that the acts and documents

of the archives of cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches in his

territory are also diligently preserved and that inventories or catalogs are

made in duplicate, one of which is to be preserved in the archive of the

church and the other in the diocesan archive.

§2. A diocesan bishop is also to take care that there is an historical archive

in the diocese and that documents having historical value are diligently

protected and systematically ordered in it.

§3. In order to inspect or remove the acts and documents mentioned in §§ 1

and 2, the norms established by the diocesan bishop are to be observed.643

This canon first addresses the records of various churches located in the diocese:

cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches. The diocesan bishop is to ensure that

642 Cf. P.T. SHEA, “Records Management and Canon 489, Part One: Civil Law Concerns,” in

CLSAProceedings, 2009, 168-175;C. TAYLOR, “Records Management and Canon 489, Part Two: Canon 489,

A Contemporary Review,” in CLSAProceedings, 2009, 175-180; J.J. TREANOR, “Records Management and

Canon 489, Part Three: Canon 489 from an Archivist / Records Manager’s Perspective,” in

CLSAProceedings, 2009, 180-184; M. VIERA, “Records Management and Canon 489, Part Four: The

Tribunal Archive,” in CLSAProceedings, 2009, 185-189; J.H. PROVOST, “Removal of Materials from Secret

Archives,” in Arthur J. Espelage (ed.), CLSA Advisory Opinions, 1994-2000, Washington, CLSA, 2002, 117-

121. 643 Cf. CCEO, c. 261, §§1-2; CIC, c. 491, §1. Curet Episcopus dioecesanus ut acta et documenta

archivorum quoque ecclesiarum cathedralium, collegiatarum, paroecialium, aliarumque in suo territorio

exstantium diligenter serventur, atque inventaria seu catalogi conficiantur duobus exemplaribus, quorum

alterum in proprio archivo, alterum in archivo dioecesano serventur.

§2. Curet etiam Episcopus dioecesanus ut in dioecesi habeatur archivum historicum habentia in

eodem diligenter custodiantur et systematice ordinentur.

§3. Acta et documenta, de quibus in §§ 1 et 2, ut inspiciantur aut efferantur, serventur normae ab

Episcopo dioecesano statutae.


the acts and documents of these churches are preserved and copies made for both the

archive of the church and the diocese. The canon next imposes the requirement of a

diocesan historical archive followed by the issue of access to these various records. The

obligation is laid on the diocesan bishop to see that the diocese has an historical archive.644

The historical archive protects and systematically orders documents which have historical

value.645 The obligations and requirements of this canon imply the right of the faithful to

the sound maintenance of diocesan and church archives that preserve valuable records and

historical information, not only about their personal status but also about the church they

attend and their diocese in general.

Rights to parish registers and archives

Canon 535 §1. Each parish is to have parochial registers, that is, those of

baptisms, marriages, deaths, and others as prescribed by the conference of

bishops or the diocesan bishop. The pastor is to see to it that these registers

are accurately inscribed and carefully preserved.

§2. In the baptismal register are also to be noted confirmation and those

things which pertain to the canonical status of the Christian faithful by

reason of marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1133, of

adoption, of the reception of sacred orders, of perpetual profession made in

a religious institute, and of change of rite. These notations are always to be

noted on a baptismal certificate.

§3. Each parish is to have its own seal. Documents regarding the canonical

status of the Christian faithful and all acts which can have juridic

importance are to be signed by the pastor or his delegate and sealed with the

parochial seal.

644 See CUSACK, Commentary on c. 491, in CLSA Comm2, 645; cf. P. HURTUBISE, “Le devoir de

mémoire. Pourquoi il faut assurer dès maintenant l’avenir de nos archives religieuses,” in Studia canonica,

42 (2008), 319-330. 645 See SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, circular letter on the care of the historical artistic

patrimony of the Church Opera artis, 11 April 1971, in AAS, 63 (1971), 315-317, English translation in CLD,

vol. 7, 821-824. This document says in no. 3: “It is the responsibility of each diocesan curia to be vigilant

and to look into it that, in accord with the norms passed by the ordinary, the rectors of churches, in cooperation

with experts, draw up an inventory of sacred edifices as well as of things which are noteworthy artistically.

In this inventory each item should be described and its value indicated. Two copies of this kind of inventory

should be prepared, one of which is kept at the church and the other deposited in the diocesan curia. It would

be very useful if the diocesan curia itself would transmit another copy to the Vatican Apostolic Library.

Notations of changes which may have taken place in the meanwhile should not be omitted.”


§4. In each parish there is to be a storage area, or archive, in which the

parochial registers are protected along with letters of bishops and other

documents which are to be preserved for reason of necessity or advantage.

The pastor is to take care that all of these things, which are to be inspected

by the diocesan bishop or his delegate at the time of visitation or at some

other opportune time, do not come into the hands of outsiders.

§5. Older parochial registers are also to be carefully protected according to

the prescripts of particular law.646

The first two paragraphs of c. 535 stress the need and importance of having

parochial registers, a parish seal, and an archive. Every parish is to have parochial registers,

and the pastor is to see that they are accurately inscribed regarding the reception of the

sacraments, Mass offerings and parish accounts.647 These registers are to be carefully

preserved. In paragraph three of the canon, the requirement of the parish seal is imposed.648

646 Cf. CCEO, c. 296; CIC, c. 535, §1. In unaquaque paroecia habeantur libri paroeciales, liber

scilicet baptizatorum, matrimoniorum, defunctorum, aliique secundum Episcoporum conferentiae aut

Episcopi dioecesani praescripta; prospiciat parochus ut iidem libri accuratea conscribantur atque diligenter

asserventur.

§2. In libro baptizatorum adnotentur quoque adscriptio Ecclesiae sui iuris vel ad aliam transitus,

necnonconfirmatio, itemque pertinent ad statum canonicum christifidelium, ratione matrimonii, salvo quidem

praescripto can. 1133, ratione adoptionis, ratione suscepti ordinis sacri, necnon professionis perpetuae in

instituto religioso emissae; eaeque adnotationes in documento accepti baptismi semper referantur.

§3. Unicuique paroecia sit proprium sigillum; testimonia quae de statu canonico christifidelium

dantur, sicut et acta omnia quae momentum iuridicum habere possunt, ab ipso parocho eiusve delegato

subscribantur et sigillo paroeciali muniantur.

§4. In unaquaque paroeciae habeatur tabularium seu archivum, in quo libri paroeciales custodiantur,

una cum Episcoporum epistulis aliisque documentis, necessitatis utilitatisve causa servandis; quae omnia, ab

Episcopo dioecesano eiusve delegato, visitationis vel alio opportuno tempore inspicienda, parochus caveat

ne ad extraneorum manus perveniant.

§5. Libri paroeciales antiquiores quoque diligenter custodiantur, secundum praescripta iuris

particularis. 647 The specific registers envisioned are for baptisms (cc. 877-878), marriages (c. 1121), deaths

(c. 1182), and other events as prescribed either by the conference of bishops or the diocesan bishop. Examples

of registers which may be required by particular law are the confirmation register (c. 895), the first

communion register, and the register for the reception of baptized non-Catholics into full communion. Special

consideration is given to the baptismal register. It is to contain not only data concerning a person’s baptism

but also data about confirmation (c. 895), marriage (cc. 1122-1123, 1685, 1706), adoption (c. 877, §3),

reception of sacred orders (c. 1054), perpetual religious profession, and change of Church sui iuris. All these

annotations are always to be noted on a baptismal certificate. Other canons mention other books to be main-

tained by each parish. Canon 788, § 1 mentions the book inscribing the names of catechumens. Canon 958

calls for a parochial book recording Mass offerings and obligations; and c. 1307, §2 calls for an additional

book to record the offerings and obligations of pious foundations. The pastor, as administrator of the juridic

person which is the parish, must also keep well organized books of parochial receipts and expenditures (c.

1284, §2, 7°). See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 535, in CLSA Comm2, 707. 648 Every parish is also to have its own seal which, with the signature of the pastor or his delegate,

is to be placed on documents regarding the canonical status of the Christian faithful and on all acts which


In the fourth paragraph, the emphasis is on the parochial archives in which these registers

and other important documents are preserved.649 The final paragraph is on the preservation

of older registers. Commenting on this canon, Juan Calvo observes that special care is to

be given in preserving the parochial archives since their contents are true cultural treasures

and are witnesses to the religious life of the Christian community.650

The requirements of this lengthy canon imply several rights of the faithful,

especially the faithful who are current or past members of the parish as well as historians

and others who have an interest in these registers and other documents. These are:

the right to have kept in the prescribed parochial registers the records pertaining to

one’s juridical status in the Church;

the right to have authentic documents, affixed with the parish seal, pertaining to

one’s canonical status; and

the right to have these records and documents protected and preserved, including

older registers belonging to parishioners who have died.

4.2 The Temporal Goods of the Church

The temporal goods of the Church is the subject of Book V of the Code of Canon

Law (De bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus). Temporal goods are necessary for accomplishing

the spiritual work of the Church through its services.651 According to c. 1254, §2, the proper

have juridic importance. See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 535, in CLSA Comm2, 708.

649 Each parish is to have its own archive (or storage area) which protects letters of bishops and other

documents to be preserved that are necessary or useful. The pastor is to make sure that the contents of the

archives do not come into the hands of outsiders. The diocesan bishop or his delegate is to inspect the archive

at the time of the visitation (cc. 396-398). The archive would certainly contain the aforementioned parish

books and the prenuptial investigation files (c. 1067). See RENKEN, Commentary on c. 535, in CLSA Comm2,

708. 650 See J. CALVO, Commentary on c. 535, in CCLA, 536; cf. V.G. D’SOUZA, “A Note on Parish

Registers and Documents,” in Indian Theological Studies, 42 (2005), 77-84. 651 See R.T. KENNEDY, Commentary to the Introduction to Book V, in CLSA Comm2, 1452;

J. RENKEN, “Temporal Goods in the Latin and Eastern Codes: A Comparative Study,” in Studies in Church

Law, 5 (2009), 79-118; J. ABBASS, “The Temporal Goods of the Church: a Comparative Study of the Eastern

and Latin Codes of Canon Law,” in Periodica, 83 (1994), 669-714.


purposes of temporal goods are “to order divine worship, to care for the decent support of

the clergy and other ministers, and to exercise works of the sacred apostolate and of charity,

especially toward the needy.”652

The opening canon of Book V speaks of the innate right (ius nativum) of the

Catholic Church to acquire, retain, administer, and alienate temporal goods. This and many

of the rights in Book V of the Code of Canon Law are not within the purview of this thesis

because they are not rights of physical persons but rights of moral and juridic persons: the

Catholic Church, the Apostolic See, individual dioceses, institutes of consecrated life and

societies of apostolic life, parishes, and other juridic persons. Still, the number of rights of

the christifideles in Book V is not insignificant. One canon explicitly gives a right to the

Christian faithful to donate to and support the Church. Canon 1261, §1 says that the faithful

are free (integrum est christifidelibus) to give temporal goods for the benefit of the

Church.653 Canon 1299, §1 in an explicit way states the right of persons to give their goods

(potest bona relinquere) for pious causes through an act inter vivos or an act mortis

652 Cf. CCEO, c. 1007; CIC, c. 1254, §2. Fines vero proprii praecipue sunt: cultus divinus ordinandus,

honesta cleri aliorumque ministrorum sustentatio procuranda, opera sacri apostolatus et caritatis, praesertim

erga egenos, exercenda.

The question of the priority of the purposes has been raised. For a detailed discussion on the

purposesstated in c. 1254, §2, see V. DE PAOLIS, De bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus: Adnotationes in Codicem:

Liber V, Rome, Gregorian University, 1986, 29; F. MORRISEY, “Acquiring Temporal Goods for the Church’s

Mission,” in The Jurist, 56 (1996), 591; V. DE PAOLIS, “Temporal Goods of the Church in the New Code

with Particular Reference to Institutes of Consecrated Life,” in The Jurist, 43 (1983), 343-360.

Adam J. MAIDA and Nicholas CAFARDI comment thus about c. 1254, §2: “The statement of the

church’s ends, given its location in Book V, obviously refers to those ends for which property is used. It

is an illustrative list of the purposes for which property can be held. Property held for reasons other than

these is not properly held by the Church.” In Church Property, Church Finances, and Church-Related

Corporations, Saint Louis, The Catholic Health Association of the United States, 1984, 10 (=MAIDA-

CAFARDI, Church Property).

G. ROCHE questions whether service to the poor is less a priority than maintenance of the clergy. Are

the poor to be assisted only after the needs of divine worship and the needs of the clergy have been met? That

is, are the purposes listed in order of priority? In “The Poor and Temporal Goods in Book V of the Code,” in

The Jurist, 55 (1995), 316 (=ROCHE, “The Poor and Temporal Goods”). 653 Cf. CIC, c. 1261, §1. Integrum est christifidelibus bona temporalia in favorem Ecclesiae conferre.

§2. Episcopus dioecesanus fideles de obligatione, de qua in can. 222, §1, monere tenetur et

opportuno modo eam urgere.


causa.654 In addition, there are eleven canons which have implicit rights. These implicit

rights are related to donations of the faithful, administrators of temporal goods, the

diocesan bishop, the diocesan finance council and the parish finance council.

4.2.1 Donations of the faithful

Canon 1267 §1. Unless the contrary is established, offerings given to

superiors or administrators of any ecclesiastical juridic person, even a

private one, are presumed given to the juridic person itself.

§2. The offerings mentioned in §1 cannot be refused except for a just cause

and, in matters of greater importance if it concerns a public juridic person,

with the permission of the ordinary; the permission of the same ordinary is

required to accept offerings burdened by a moral obligation or condition,

without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1295.

§3. Offerings given by the faithful for a certain purpose can be applied only

for that same purpose.655

Canon 1267 concerns offerings given to the Church by the faithful. The first

paragraph of the canon says that offerings given to superiors or administrators of any

ecclesiastical juridic person, whether public or private, are presumed to be given to the

juridic person itself unless the contrary is established. The second paragraph establishes

that these offerings may not be refused (repudiari nequeunt) except for a just cause656 and

654 Pious causes refer to an undertaking for a spiritual or supernatural motive, to merit grace or to

glorify God, or in satisfaction for one’s sins or those of others (cc. 114, §2; 1254, §2).

Inter vivos refers to transfer of ownership while the donor remains alive. It is contractual (c. 1290)

and therefore must be accepted by the recipient; once accepted, it is irrevocable.

Mortis causa refers to transfer of ownership upon the death of the donor; it becomes effective at the

moment of death. See KENNEDY, Commentary on c. 1299, in CLSA Comm2, 1510. 655 Cf. CCEO, c. 1016; CIC, c. 1267, §1. Nisi contrarium constet, oblationes quae fiunt Superioribus

vel administratoribus cuiusvis personae iuridicae ecclesiasticae, etiam privatae, praesumuntur ipsi personae

iuridicae factae.

§2. Oblationes, de quibus in §1, repudiari nequeunt nisi iusta de causa et, in rebus maioris momenti,

de licentia Ordinarii, si agitur de persona iuridica publica; eiusdem Ordinarii licentia requiritur ut acceptentur

quae onere modali vel condicione gravantur, firmo praescripto can. 1295.

§3. Oblationes a fidelibus ad certum finem factae, nonnisi ad eundem finem destinari possunt. 656 J. RENKEN observes that a “just cause” for refusing a gift may be that the gift is given with

perpetual conditions attached. In Church Property, 129; cf. J.H. PROVOST and R.A. HILL, “Advisory Opinion:

Stole Fees,” in The Jurist, 45 (1985), 321-324.

MARIANO LÓPEZ ALARCÓN remarks that, if no just cause is determined, then the just cause shall

beestablished in relation to the lawful origin of the goods, the good faith of the donor, the destination of the

goods, the nature and figurative representation of the object, etc., while the importance of the object will

depend mainly on its values. Should the donation be refused without the fulfilment if these conditions, the


in keeping with the specified conditions concerning matters of greater importance

pertaining to a public juridic person.657 The final paragraph of the canon speaks about

fidelity to the intentions of the donors. Donations given for a specific purpose may be used

only for that purpose, whether it is for a spiritual purpose, charity, the apostolate or other

similar work. In case of doubt, it should be remembered that the ordinary is the executor

of all pious dispositions (c. 1301). Moreover, the faithful must be informed of the use of

the goods given for those specific purposes (c. 1287, §2).658

Three rights of the faithful are implied in the requirements of this canon. First, the

faithful have the right to give donations to the Church via the competent superior or

administrator in the knowledge that the latter will transmit them to the juridic person.

Second, they have the right not to have their offerings refused except in accord with the

conditions of the second paragraph of c. 1267. Third, they have the right to have their

donations used for the purposes for which they were given.

Rights concerning pious causes

Canon 1299 §2. In dispositions mortis causa for the good of the Church,

the formalities of civil law are to be observed if possible; if they have been

person refusing could be sued for damages (c. 128). However, nothing is said about the rejection of donations

by representatives of private juridical persons, which means that they would have to observe the prescriptions

of their own statutes, which must remain within the legal limits established in the Code and applicable secular

legislation. In Commentary on c. 1267, in CCLA, 982; R.E. JENKINS, “Gifts, Donations and Donor Intent in

the Canon Law of the Catholic Church,” in The Jurist, 72 (2012), 76-108. 657 Canon 1295 requires the observance of cc. 1291-1294 on alienation and on transactions that

jeopardize the patrimonial conditions of a juridic person. Since matters of greater importance are not specified

in c. 1267, §2, they are to be determined by the statutes of the juridic person. These matters may also depend

upon the particular circumstances. See KENNEDY, Commentary on c. 1267, in CLSA Comm2, 1469-1470.

KENNEDY differentiates a gift with a “modal obligation” attached from a gift with a “condition”

attached. “A modal obligation, according to Roman law whence the term is derived, is an obligation

undertaken at the time of accepting a gift which is enforceable against the donor but the breach of which does

not result in reversion of the gift to the donor. A conditional gift, on the other hand, conditions transfer of

ownership upon fulfilment of the condition; the breach results in a reversion of ownership to the donor.” In

ibid., 1469. 658 See J.A. RENKEN, Church Property: A Commentary on Canon Law Governing Temporal Goods

in the United States and Canada, New York, Alba House, 2009, 128-131 (=RENKEN., Church Property); D.

TIRAPU, Commentary on c. 1267, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 4/1, 66-68; and KENNEDY, Commentary on c.

1267, in CLSA Comm2, 1470.


omitted, the heirs must be admonished regarding the obligation, to which

they are bound, of fulfilling the intention of the testator.659

Canon 1299, §2 directs the observance of civil laws, if possible, for dispositions

mortis causa and admonishes heirs to fulfill the intention of the testator when civil laws

are not observed. The main purpose of the observance of civil laws is to avoid conflict and

confusion after the donor has died.660 We see two implicit rights here. The faithful have

the right that civil laws, if possible, be observed in their dispositions mortis causa for the

good of the Church. If they have been omitted, the faithful have the right that the competent

authority will admonish their heirs to fulfill their intentions.

Right to have pious wills respected

Canon 1300. The legitimately accepted wills of the faithful who give or

leave their resources for pious causes, whether through an act inter vivos or

through an act mortis causa, are to be fulfilled most diligently even

regarding the manner of administration and distribution of goods, without

prejudice to the prescript of can. 1301, §3.661

Canon 1300 deals with pious wills of the faithful, whether their bequest be given

through an act inter vivos or an act mortis causa. The law obliges the faithful fulfillment

of pious wills by the competent authorities. Fidelity to the intention of the donor is a

cardinal principle of canon law, and it extends even to the manner of the administration

and distribution of the goods.662 In saying that the legitimately accepted wills of the faithful

are to be fulfilled (impleantur), the canon implies the right of the faithful to have their wills

659 Cf. CCEO, c. 1043; CIC, c. 1299, §2. In dispositionibus mortis causa in bonum Ecclesiae

serventur, si fieri possit, sollemnitates iuris civilis; quae si omissae fuerint, heredes moneri debent de

obligatione, qua tenentur, adimplendi testatoris voluntatem. 660 See RENKEN, Church Property, 301; cf. ID., “Collaboration of Canon Law and Civil Law

inChurch Property Issues,” in Studies in Church Law, 4(2008), 43-80; and ID., “Pious Wills and Pious

Foundations,” in Philippine Canonical Forum, 10 (2008), 69-110. 661 Cf. CCEO, c. 1044; CIC, c. 1300. Voluntates fidelium facultates suas in pias causas donantium

vel relinquentium, sive per actum inter vivos sive per actum mortis causa, legitime acceptatae, diligentissime

impleantur etiam circa modum administrationis et erogationis bonorum, firmo praescripto can. 1301, §3. 662 See KENNEDY, Commentary on c. 1299, in CLSA Comm2, 1513.


respected by Church authorities. The reference to c. 1301, §3 is explained in the treatment

of the following canon.

Right to have the ordinary fulfill pious wills

Canon 1301 §1. The ordinary is the executor of all pious wills whether

mortis causa or inter vivos.

§2. By this right, the ordinary can and must exercise vigilance, even through

visitation, so that pious wills are fulfilled, and other executors are bound to

render him an account after they have performed their function.

§3. Stipulations contrary to this right of an ordinary attached to last wills

and testaments are to be considered non-existent.663

Canon 1301, §1 state that the ordinary is the executor of all pious wills. The

ordinary also has the right and obligation to exercise vigilance so that the intentions

expressed in pious wills – whether inter vivos or mortis causa – are fulfilled. He can and

must be vigilant (potest ac debet vigilare) in seeing that these wills are properly satisfied.

This right of vigilance can be exercised by the ordinary through the visitation, as mentioned

in c. 1300, §2. Stipulations contrary to the right of the ordinary in last wills and testaments

are to be considered non-existent (c. 1301, §3). The duty of the ordinary in executing wills

and overseeing their fulfillment gives rise to the implicit right of the faithful to have their

wills fulfilled in accord with their wishes.664

663 Cf. CCEO, c. 1045; CIC, c. 1301, §1. Ordinarius omnium piarum voluntatum tam mortis causa

quam inter vivos exsecutor est.

§2. Hoc ex iure Ordinarius vigilare potest ac debet, etiam per visitationem, ut piae voluntates

impleantur, eique ceteri exsecutores, perfuncti munere, reddere rationem tenentur.

§3. Clausulae huic Ordinarii iuri contrariae, ultimis voluntatibus adiectae, tamquam non appositae

habeantur. 664 See KENNEDY, Commentary on c. 1301, in CLSA Comm2, 1513. Cf. J.F. HITE, “The

Administration of Church Property,” in J. HITE and D.J. WARD (eds.), Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon

Law: A Textbook for Ministry Students, rev. ed., Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1990, 417.


Rights to safeguard and execute pious trusts

Canon 1302 §2. The ordinary must demand that goods held in trust are

safeguarded and also exercise vigilance for the execution of the pious will

according to the norm of can. 1301.665

Canon 1302 is about pious trusts. A pious trust is one kind of pious will, namely,

one that entails ongoing administration; the ordinary must see to it that these pious trusts

are safeguarded.666 Whenever goods are received in trust for pious causes, the ordinary

must require (debet exigere) that the goods be safely preserved, and he must be vigilant

that the pious dispositions are executed as per c. 1301.667 This strong obligation imposed

on the ordinary yields the implicit right of the faithful that their pious trusts be safeguarded

and executed.

Rights concerning pious foundations

Canon 1305. Money and movable goods assigned to an endowment are to

be deposited immediately in a safe place approved by the ordinary so that

the money or value of the movable goods is protected; as soon as possible,

these are to be invested cautiously and usefully for the benefit of the

foundation, with express and specific mention made of the obligation; this

investment is to be made according to the prudent judgment of the ordinary,

after he has heard those concerned and his own finance council.668

665 Cf. CCEO, c. 1046, §2; CIC, c. 1302, §2. Ordinarius debet exigere ut bona fiduciaria in tuto

collocentur, itemque vigilare pro exsecutione piae voluntatis ad normam can. 1301. 666 KENNEDY, Commentary on c. 1302, in CLSA Comm2, 1514. The ordinary is not primarily

responsible for implementing the terms of a pious will. It belongs to the other executors. (See

Communicationes, 12 [1980], 429.) The ordinary must ensure that no abuses creep into the execution of a

pious will. If there is no executor named in a will, or if an executor is negligent, the ordinary is responsible

to implement the terms of a pious will personally or through a delegate. In this sense, the role of the ordinary

does not depend upon the will of the faithful who made the will but upon the nature of the hierarchical

structure of the Church. See Commentary on c. 1299, in CLSA Comm2, 1513; cf. J. OTADUY, “Perspectiva

canónica del trust,” in Ius Canonicum, 55 (2015), 593-640. 667 Debet exigere may entail the ordinary issuing a precept. If the goods given in trust to a member

of a religious institute or society of apostolic life are destined for a particular place, for a diocese or their

inhabitants, or for pious causes, the local ordinary must ensure that the requirements of c. 1302, §2 are

fulfilled (c. 1302, §3). 668 Cf. CCEO, c. 1049; CIC, c. 1305. Pecunia et bona mobilia, dotationis nomine assignata, statim

in loco tuto ab Ordinario approbando deponantur eum in finem, ut eadem pecunia vel bonorum mobilium

pretium custodiantur et quam primum caute et utiliter secundum prudens eiusdem Ordinarii iudicium, auditis

et iis quorum interest et proprio a rebus oeconomicis consilio, collocentur in commodum eiusdem fundationis

cum expressa et individua mentione oneris.


Canon 1305 is on the pious foundation. The pious foundation is defined in the first

paragraph of c. 1303 which distinguishes autonomous and non-autonomous pious

foundations. This canon has rules on the careful handling of money and movable goods

assigned to the endowment of a pious foundation. Good arguments indicate that the canon

pertains only to non-autonomous foundations.669 An important concern of the canon is the

way the money and movable goods are protected by being deposited immediately (statim)

in a safe place approved by the ordinary. The canon mandates the ordinary to hear his

finance council before he decides about investing the funds. He is also to hear other

concerned persons (living donors, families of deceased donors, beneficiaries of the

foundation, et al.).670 The requirements of the canon and the obligations it places on the

ordinary imply that the faithful who make a pious foundation on behalf of the Church have

the right that it be protected and invested cautiously and usefully as well as the right that

the finance council and other concerned persons be consulted before the ordinary makes

the investment.

4.2.2 Administrators of temporal goods

The administrators of temporal goods are those who take care of the administration

and the stewardship of all ecclesiastical goods. The Code states in c. 1273 that the Roman

Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward of all the ecclesiastical goods. In every

diocese it is required by the law to have a finance officer whose duty is to administer, under

the authority of the bishop, the temporal goods belonging to the public juridic person

669 R.T. KENNEDY maintains that c. 1305 is only about non-autonomous pious foundations.

Autonomous pious foundations are themselves juridic persons and, as such, are governed by their statutes.

Since many autonomous pious foundations are often private juridic persons, it would not be appropriate for

the ordinary to supervise them closely, as c. 1305 requires. See Commentary on c. 1305, in CLSA Comm2,

1518-1519. 670 Ibid., 1519. See also V.G. PEÑUELA, Commentary on c. 1305, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 4/1, 180.


known as the diocese (c. 494).671 Particular duties of the diocesan bishop in the

administration of temporal goods are considered in the subsequent section 4.2.3.

Rights to diligent administration

Canon 1284 §1. All administrators are bound to fulfill their function with

the diligence of a good householder.

§2. Consequently, they must:

1° exercise vigilance so that the goods entrusted to their care are in no way

lost or damaged, taking out insurance policies for this purpose insofar as

necessary;

2° take care that the ownership of ecclesiastical goods is protected by civilly

valid methods;

3° observe the prescripts of both canon and civil law or those imposed by a

founder, a donor, or legitimate authority, and especially be on guard so that

no damage comes to the Church from the non-observance of civil laws;

4° collect the return of goods and the income accurately and on time, protect

what is collected, and use them according to the intention of the founder or

legitimate norms;

5° pay at the stated time the interest due on a loan or mortgage and take care

that the capital debt itself is repaid in a timely manner;

6° with the consent of the ordinary, invest the money which is left over after

expenses and can be usefully set aside for the purposes of the juridic person;

7° keep well organized books of receipts and expenditures;

8° draw up a report of the administration at the end of each year;

9° organize correctly and protect in a suitable and proper archive the

documents and records on which the property rights of the Church or the

institute are based, and deposit authentic copies of them in the archive of

the curia when it can be done conveniently.

§3. It is strongly recommended that administrators prepare budgets of

incomes and expenditures each year; it is left to particular law, however, to

require them and to determine more precisely the ways in which they are to

be presented.672

671 R.T. KENNEDY maintains that c. 1278 empowers the diocesan bishop to delegate the diocesan

finance officer the power to appoint the administrators mentioned in c. 1279, §2. See Commentary on c. 1278,

in CLSA Comm2, 1480. J. HUELS offers a suggested faculty which the diocesan bishop may give to the

diocesan finance officer: “If the public juridic person does not have its own administrator, whether by law,

custom, the charter of foundation, or its statutes, you may appoint a suitable administrator for a three-year

term and reappoint the same person for another term (c. 1279, §2).” In Empowermentfor Ministry, New York,

Paulist Press, 2003, 195. 672 Cf. CCEO, c. 1020, §1, §2; 1028; CIC, c. 1284, §1. Omnes administratores diligentia boni

patrisfamilias suum munus implere tenentur.

§2. Exinde debent:

1° vigilare ne bona suae curae concredita quoquo modo pereant aut detrimentum capiant, initis in hunc finem,

quatenus opus sit, contractibus assecurationis;

2° curare ut proprietas bonorum ecclesiasticorum modis civiliter validis in tuto ponatur;


Canon 1284 considers the obligations of the administrator in the performance of his

office. In paragraph one we see the general principle that administrators are bound to fulfill

their function with the diligence of a good householder. The third paragraph strongly

recommends that an annual budget of diocesan income and expenditures is to be prepared

but leaves it to particular law to require them and determine how exactly they are to be

presented.673 The lengthy second paragraph imposes nine obligations on administrators of

temporal goods which they must (debent) observe. Strictly speaking, these obligations only

pertain to administrators of the goods of public juridic persons, those who fulfill their office

in the name of the Church (cf. c. 1282), and so the implied rights are those of the juridic

person as such. Insofar as the temporal goods came to the public juridic person by donation

or bequest, however, the concerned faithful would have the implicit right that the

administrator responsibly fulfill these obligations.

3° praescripta servare iuris tam canonici quam civilis, aut quae a fundatore vel donatore vel legitima

auctoritate imposita sint, ac praesertim cavere ne ex legum civilium inobservantia damnum Ecclesiae

obveniat;

4° reditus bonorum ac proventus accurate et iusto tempore exigere exactosque tuto servare et secundum

fundatoris mentem aut legitimas normas impendere;

5° foenus vel mutui vel hypothecae causa solvendum, statuto tempore solvere, ipsamque debiti summam

capitalem opportune reddendam curare;

6° pecuniam, quae de expensis supersit et utiliter collocari possit, de consensu Ordinarii in fines personae

iuridicae occupare;

7° accepti et expensi libros bene ordinatos habere;

8° rationem administrationis singulis exeuntibus annis componere;

9° documenta et instrumenta, quibus Ecclesiae aut instituti iura in bona nituntur, rite ordinare et in archivo

convenienti et apto custodire; authentica vero eorum exemplaria, ubi commode fieri potest, in archivo curiae

deponere.

§3. Provisiones accepti et expensi, ut ab administratoribus quotannis componantur, enixe

commendatur; iuri autem particulari relinquitur eas praecipere et pressius determinare modos quibus

exhibendae sint. 673 See V.G. PEÑUELA, Commentary on c. 1284, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 4/1, 112-114. See also

KENNEDY, Commentary on c. 1284, in CLSA Comm2, 1485-1487; and RENKEN, Church Property, 210-219.

Cf. R.F. AUSTIN, “The Search for Identity: Canonical Prospective on Diocesan Development Funds,” in

CLSANZ, 1 (1997), 12-25.


Rights to justice in employment

Canon 1286. Administrators of goods:

1° in the employment of workers are to observe meticulously also the civil

laws concerning labor and social policy, according to the principles handed

on by the Church;

2° are to pay a just and decent wage to employees so that they are able to

provide fittingly for their own needs and those of their dependents.674

Canon 1286, 1ºobligates the administrators to observe the civil laws relating to

labour and social life, not forgetting the Church’s social doctrine.675 Applying the civil law

principles is not always easy, especially when there is a conflict with regard to the Church’s

teachings and the divine law. This could happen in the case, cited by some writers, of

secular labour legislation that requires employers to insure their workers for abortion

costs.676 Canon 1286, 2º requires the payment of just and decent wages that would provide

fittingly for the employees’ own needs and those of their family. Church administrators

cannot ignore the natural right of a person with regard to a just and honest wage. We see,

therefore, in the two sections of this canon two implied rights of the faithful: the right to

674 Cf. CCEO, c. 1030; CIC, c. 1286. Administratores bonorum:

1° in operarum locatione leges etiam civiles, quae ad laborem et vitam socialem attinent, adamussim servent,

iuxta principia ab Ecclesia tradita;

2° iis, qui operam ex condicto praestant, iustam et honestam mercedem tribuant, ita ut iidem suis et suorum

necessitatibus convenienter providere valeant. 675 Some important documents on the Church’s social teachings are LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter

Rerum novarum, 15 May 1891, in ASS, 23 (1891), 641-670, English translation in C. CARLEN (ed.), Papal

Encyclicals:1878-1903, vol. 2, Raleigh, NC, McGrath, 1981, 241-261; PIUS XI, Encyclical Letter

Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, in AAS, 23 (1931), 177-228, English translation in C. CARLEN (ed.),

Papal Encyclicals: 1939-1958, vol. 3, 415-443; JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Letter on Christianity and Social

Progress Mater et magistra, 15 May 1961, in AAS, 53 (1961), 401-464, English translation in TPS, 7 (1962),

295-343; PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio, 26 March 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), 257-299,

English translation in TPS, 12 (1967), 144-172; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens on the

Commemoration of the Ninetieth Anniversary of Rerum novarum, 14 September 1981, in AAS, 73 (1981),

577-647, English translation in TPS, 26 (1981), 289-336; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo rei

socialis, 30 December 1987, in AAS, 80 (1988), 513-586, English translation in TPS, 33 (1988), 122-155;

JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter for the 100 years of Rerum novarum, “Centesimus annus,” 1 May 1991, in

AAS, 83 (1991), 793-867; English translation, in O’ BRIEN, Catholic Social Thought, 437-488. 676 See J. MYERS, Commentary on c. 1286, in CLSA Comm1, 877.


have the civil laws on labour and social policy observed by Church administrators and the

right of Church employees to a just and decent wage.677

Right to financial reports

Canon 1287 §1. Both clerical and lay administrators of any ecclesiastical

goods whatever which have not been legitimately exempted from the power

of governance of the diocesan bishop are bound by their office to present an

annual report to the local ordinary who is to present it for examination by

the finance council; any contrary custom is reprobated.

§2. According to norms to be determined by particular law, administrators

are to render an account to the faithful concerning the goods offered by the

faithful to the Church.678

Canon 1287 focuses on an administrator’s accountability to ecclesiastical authority

and to other members of the faithful. The obligations of the canon pertain to administrators

of ecclesiastical goods, both clerical and lay. The first paragraph applies to administrators

who are not exempt from the authority of the diocesan bishop. These administrators are

bound by office (officio tenentur) to submit an annual report to the local ordinary, and then

the local ordinary is to present this report to the diocesan finance council for examination.

The second paragraph obliges administrators to render an account to the faithful (rationes

fidelibus reddant) for the goods they have donated to the Church. The obligation of

presenting the report to the faithful is not as forcefully stated as is the obligation of

presenting the report to the local ordinary.679 Still, an obligation exists, even if mild; and

677 Cf. RENKEN, “Collaboration of Canon Law and Civil Law in Church Property Issues,” inStudies

in Church Law, 4 (2008), 43-80. 678 Cf. CCEO, c. 1031; CIC, c. 1287, §1. Reprobata contraria consuetudine, administratores tam

clerici quam laici quorumvis bonorum ecclesiasticorum, quae ab Episcopi dioecesani potestate regiminis non

sint legitime subducta, singulis annis officio tenentur rationes Ordinario loci exhibendi, qui eas consilio a

rebus oeconomicis examinandas committat.

§2. De bonis, quae a fidelibus Ecclesiae offeruntur, administratores rationes fidelibus reddant iuxta

normas iure particulari statuendas. 679 M. LÓPEZ ALARCÓN suggests that this entails presenting information about the state and use of

these goods rather than a formal rendering of accounts. See Commentary on c. 1287, in Pamplona Comm. A

different opinion is expressed by F. AZNAR, La administración de los bienes temporales de la Iglesia,

Salamanca, 1993, 390 (=AZNAR, La administración de los bienes temporales).


this obligation could be strengthened and made more specific in particular law. Thus, in

accord with the norms of particular law, the faithful have a right to an accounting from the

administrators of temporal goods concerning the goods they have offered to the Church.

4.2.3 The diocesan bishop

The diocesan bishop is the ex officio representative of the diocese in all juridical

matters, both ecclesiastical and civil, and in the administrative as well as judicial arenas

(c. 393).680 Two canons in Book V have rules concerning acts of administration placed by

the diocesan bishop and on diocesan taxes, which in turn give rise to implicit rights of the

faithful of the diocese.

Rights concerning ordinary and extraordinary administration

Canon 1277. The diocesan bishop must hear the finance council and college

of consultors to place acts of administration which are more important in

light of the economic condition of the diocese. In addition to the cases

specially expressed in universal law or the charter of a foundation, however,

he needs the consent of the finance council and of the college of consultors

to place acts of extraordinary administration. It is for the conference of

bishops to define which acts are to be considered of extraordinary

administration.681

Canon 1277 is about important acts of ordinary and extraordinary administration

placed by the diocesan bishop. The canon has two parts, the first dealing with acts of

ordinary administration which are more important in light of the economic condition of the

680 Concerning parishes, the parochus is the only legal representative of the parish (c. 532). Canon

537 requires that each parish is to have a finance council which is regulated by universal law as well as by

norms issued by the diocesan bishop. The purpose of the finance council, according to c. 537, is to provide

the pastor with the assistance of the Christian faithful in the administration of parish goods. 681 Cf. CCEO, c. 263, §4; CIC, c. 1277. Episcopus dioecesanus quod attinet ad actus administrationis

ponendos, qui, attento statu oeconomico dioecesis, sunt maioris momenti, consilium a rebus oeconomicis et

collegium consultorum audire debet; eiusdem tamen consilii atque etiam collegii consultorum consensu eget,

praeterquam in casibus iure universali vel tabulis fundationis specialiter expressis, ad ponendos actus

extraordinariae administrationis. Conferentiae autem Episcoporum est definire quinam actus habendi sint

extraordinariae administrationis.


diocese.682 In matters of more important administration, the diocesan bishop must hear

(audire debet) the opinion of two bodies, the diocesan finance council (c. 492) and the

college of consultors (c. 502). This consultation is necessary for the validity of his act (c.

127, §1).683 The second part of the canon treats acts of extraordinary administration.684 To

place an act of extraordinary administration, the bishops needs to obtain the consent

(consensu eget) of both the finance council and the college of consultors, which consent

also is necessary for the validity of the act (c. 127, §1). The canon places the responsibility

on the episcopal conference to determine which acts are to be regarded as extraordinary

administration.685

The evident purpose of this canon is to protect diocesan assets from arbitrary and

unwise decisions by requiring the bishop to seek the advice or consent of the finance

682 Ordinary administration is divided into routine and non-routine acts.Ordinary administration

includes whatever is necessary for the preservation of Church property and whatever actions are required to

collect the income from such property; also, the payment of current bills and taxes, the making of ordinary

repairs, and keeping an ordinary bank account. Ordinary acts of administration also include such acts as are

to be done at fixed intervals (monthly, quarterly, annually) as well as those which are necessary for the

customary transaction of business.

Routine acts of ordinary administration are performed by the diocesan finance officer, who

administers diocesan goods under the supervision of the diocesan bishop (c. 494, §3). Non-routine acts are

acts of ordinary administration which are more important in the light of the economic condition of the

diocese. 683 John Renken comments on the phrase “matters of more important administration” which require

the counsel of the diocesan finance council and the college of consultors before the diocesan bishop places

“non-routine” acts of ordinary diocesan administration “which are more important in the light of the

economic condition of the diocese.” He says that the meaning of the phrase “more important” is not

explained. It may be reasonable to hold as a rule of thumb that the “matters of greater importance” in c. 1267

would involve gifts whose value surpasses the minimum amount set by the conference of bishops for the

alienation of ecclesiastical goods (c. 1292, §1). In addition, it may also happen that a gift is considered to be

of greater importance if certain notoriety is attached to it or its donor. In the final analysis, the decision on

the meaning of the term rests with the person wishing to refuse the gift, unless its meaning has been certainly

defined by a higher authority. In Church Property, 129; ID., “Acts of Extraordinary Administration,” in S.A.

EUART, J.A. ALESANDRO, and P.HARTMANN (eds.), Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions,

Washington, CLSA, 2010, 160-168 (=RR). Cf. R.J., KASLYN, “Accountability of Diocesan Bishops: A

Significant Aspect of Ecclesial Communion,” in The Jurist, 67(2007), 109-152; and F. MORRISEY, “Ordinary

and Extraordinary Administration: Canon 1277,” in The Jurist, 48(1998), 709-726. 684 Acts of extraordinary administration are “acts which exceed the limits and manner of ordinary

administration” (c. 1281, §1). 685 For a detailed explanation of extraordinary administration and the particular law for the United

States, see RENKEN, Church Property, 179-187.


council and college of consultors. According to c. 127, §3, “all whose consent or council

is required are obliged (obligatione tenentur) to offer their opinion sincerely.” Thus, not

only do the faithful have the right that their bishop make the required consultations, they

also have the right that those giving their opinions do so sincerely and not just be a “rubber

stamp” for every project of the bishop.

Rights concerning diocesan taxes

Canon 1263. After the diocesan bishop has heard the finance council and

the presbyteral council, he has the right to impose a moderate tax for the

needs of the diocese upon public juridic persons subject to his governance;

this tax is to be proportionate to their income. He is permitted only to impose

an extraordinary and moderate exaction upon other physical and juridic

persons in case of grave necessity and under the same conditions, without

prejudice to particular laws and customs which attribute greater rights to

him.686

This canon is about diocesan taxes, both ordinary and extraordinary. Taxes are

considered a secondary means of financing and, in a certain sense, supplementary to

voluntary offerings.687 Canon 1263 envisions the following types of taxes:688 a) the

686 Cf. CCEO, c. 1012; CIC, c. 1263. Ius est Episcopo dioecesano, auditis consilio a rebus

oeconomicis et consilio presbyterali, pro dioecesis necessitatibus, personis iuridicis publicis suo regimini

subiectis moderatum tributum, earum redditibus proportionatum, imponendi; ceteris personis physicis et

iuridicis ipsi licet tantum, in casu gravis necessitatis et sub iisdem condicionibus, extraordinariam et

moderatam exactionem imponere, salvis legibus et consuetudinibus particularibus quae eidem potiora iura

tribuant. 687 See J.T. MARTÍN DE AGAR, “Bienes temporales y missión de la Iglesia,” in Manual de Derecho

Canónico, 2nd ed., Pamplona, 1991, 660-661(=MARTÍN DE AGAR, “Bienes temporales y missión de la

Iglesia”); see also D. TIRAPU, Commentary on c. 1263, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 4/1, 55. 688 Martín De Agarobserves that the taxes which are contemplated in the Code have certain

characteristics: “a) it is up to the diocesan bishop to determine how to impose them in the most appropriate

and effective manner; b) they are of a general character; one canon not impose them on a singular subjects;

c) they are diocesan: their establishment, subjects, collection, and final application must all take place in the

same diocese; d) the collection quota must always be moderate and attuned to the financial state of each

passive subject. Moderation implies that the real needs of the diocese are assessed in conjunction with those

proper to the subject persons, lest the diocese hinder form attaining their ends. The Code makes specific

reference to the income, which fashions the taxes as burdens upon the rent and, indirectly, hinders their status

as taxes on the stable patrimony of the persons so obliged.” In MARTÍN DE AGAR, “Bienes temporales y

missión de la Iglesia,” 661.


ordinary tribute,689 b) a specific ordinary tribute, c) an extraordinary diocesan tribute,690 d)

and possibly other taxes based on particular laws and customs. The canon has a number of

conditions that must be met before the bishop can impose taxes. Regarding the ordinary

tax, the bishop must first consult the finance council and the presbyteral council. Second,

the tax must be moderate. Third, it must be needed for the diocese. Fourth, it can only be

imposed on public juridic persons subject to the bishop’s governance. Fifth, it must be

proportionate to their income. Regarding the extraordinary tax imposed on other physical

and juridic persons, the other conditions are, first, that the tax be moderate and, second,

that it be levied only in a case of grave necessity. These are all restrictions on the bishop’s

power and imply the right of the faithful not to be taxed unless all the conditions of the

canon are met.691

689 F. AZNAR says of the ordinary tribute: a) this is a fixed general contribution to the needs of the

diocese; b) imposition of this tax is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop by a decree which, due to its

special character and meaning, may specify as exactly as possible the persons taxed and the amount to be

paid; c) for the decree to be valid the ordinary must solicit the opinion of the presbyteral council and the

finance council (c. 127, §1); d) the remaining legal details of the tax must be determined: frequency,

installments, purposes, method of payment, exemptions, etc.; e) the subjects to be taxed are the public juridic

person subject to the bishop’s jurisdiction; f) the amount of the tax must be moderate to the income of each

juridical person affected. In AZNAR, La administración de los bienes temporales, 99. See also MARTÍN DE

AGAR, “Bienes temporales y missión de la Iglesia,” 661. 690 D. Tirapuobserves, regarding the specific ordinary tribute, that the so called seminary tax may

be mentioned, to provide for the needs of a seminary (c. 264). All juridical persons are subject to this tax,

both public and private, if they have an establishment in the diocese, regardless of whether they are subject

to the bishop’s jurisdiction. The tax shall be moderate according to the seminary’s actual needs that are not

covered by other means. Certain subjects are exempt from this tax, such as juridical persons who live solely

on alms or who have duties similar to those of a seminary.

The extraordinary diocesan tribute is a contribution for cases of extreme necessity that cannot be

established as a fixed tax. The general conditions of an extraordinary tax are the same as for an ordinary tax,

but the taxable subjects are different. An extraordinary tax includes private juridical persons and physical

persons subject to the bishop’s jurisdiction. See TIRAPU, Commentary on c. 1263, in Exegetical Comm, vol.

4/1, 57. 691 Cf. J.A. RENKEN, “Canon 1263: Parish Financial Goals,” in RR, 2008, 122-124.


Conclusion

In this chapter, we have explored rights common to all the faithful in the munus

regendi of the Church as found in the canons of Books II and V of the Code of Canon Law.

With respect to Book II, various explicit and implicit rights were identified in several

categories on associations of the faithful, the diocese, the parish, and diocesan and parish

registers. Additional explicit and implicit rights of all the faithful were identified in Book

V. These were treated in three categories on donations of the faithful, duties of

administrators of temporal goods, and financial duties of the diocesan bishop.

We identified a number of rights in Books II that are explicit in the wording of the

canons. Regarding associations of the faithful, these explicit rights are the fundamental

right to establish associations (c. 215), even by means of a private agreement (c. 299, §1),

in which the faithful are free to pursue the purposes of associations (c. 298, §1); the right

of members of an association to issue particular norms regarding the association, to hold

meetings, and to designate moderators, officials, and administrators of goods (c. 309); and,

in a private association of the faithful which has not been established as a juridic person,

to exercise collectively the rights involved in managing the association (c. 310).692

Most of the rights common to all the faithful in the canons of Books II and V are

implicit. As with the canons on the munus docendi and the munus sanctificandi, these rights

of the munus regendi by and large are implicit in the obligations of office holders and in

other requirements of the law.

692 Other explicit rights are noted below.


The faithful who belong to associations enjoy all the rights and privileges of

membership (c. 306). They have the right not to be rejected for membership in an

association solely for the reason of their membership in another association (c. 307, §2),

and they may be dismissed from an association only for a just cause according to the norm

of law and the statutes (c. 308). They have the right to regulate their association’s internal

organisation, to hold meetings, to have their own officials, to administer their goods

according to the norm of their statutes (c. 309), and to guide and direct the association

(c. 321).

With respect to implicit rights in their diocese, the faithful have the right to the

pastoral care and ministry of their bishop (c. 383); the right to be instructed in the truths of

the faith through the preaching of their bishop and to have the integrity of their faith

defended (c. 386); and the right to the spiritual means for growing in holiness according to

their own vocation (c. 387). They have the right to the Missa pro populo celebrated

personally by their bishop (c. 388); the right to have the law of the Church enforced by the

bishop so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline (c. 392); and the right to

apostolic works organized and overseen by the diocese under the supervision of the bishop

(c. 394). They also have the right to the bishop’s residence and presence in the diocese for

the fulfillment of their diocesan rights (c. 395), and they have the right to a canonical

visitation by their bishop or his delegate in accord with the law (c. 396).

At the level of the parish, the faithful have the right to be instructed in the truths of

the faith through homilies and catechetical instruction, to have opportunities to engage in

apostolic works, to have a Catholic education for the children and youth of the parish, to

have an outreach to those who have ceased the practice of their religion or do not profess


the true faith, to have the Eucharist as the center of the parish assembly, to be nourished

through the devout celebration of the sacraments, to have opportunities frequently to

approach the sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and penance, to be led to the practice

of prayer and to take part consciously and actively in the sacred liturgy, and to have

liturgical celebrations that are free of abuses (c. 528). The faithful also have the right to the

pastoral care and leadership of their pastor (c. 529), to have a pastoral council of the parish

in accord with diocesan law (c. 536), and to have a parish finance council (c. 537).

With respect to diocesan and parish registers, the faithful have the explicit right to

obtain from the archives of the diocese, either personally or through proxy, a copy of public

documents pertaining to their personal status (c. 487, §2). They also have several implicit

rights. In virtue of their right to privacy, they have the right that their records with respect

to criminal cases be destroyed in accord with c. 489, §2. They also have the right that the

records of the diocese and all churches in it be well maintained and safeguarded (c. 491).

At the parish level, they have the right to have their records pertaining to their juridical

status kept in the prescribed parochial registers; the right to obtain authentic documents,

affixed with the parish seal, pertaining to their canonical status; and the right to have these

records and documents protected and preserved, including older registers belonging to

parishioners who have died (c. 535).

Two canons of Book V of the Code, on the temporal goods of the Church, explicitly

grant rights to the faithful. Canon 1261, §1 says that the faithful are free to give temporal

goods for the benefit of the Church; and c. 1299, §1 states the right of persons to give their

goods for pious causes through an act inter vivos or an act mortis causa. Most of the rights

in Book V, however, are implicit in the wording of the canons.


The faithful have the implicit right to give donations to the competent superior or

administrator in the knowledge that the latter will transmit them to the juridic person; they

have the right not to have their offerings refused except in accord with the conditions of

the law; and they have the right to have their donations used for the purposes for which

they were given (c. 1267). The faithful have the right to have their wills respected by

Church authorities (c. 1300) and fulfilled in accord with their wishes (c. 1301). They have

the right that their pious trusts be safeguarded and correctly executed (c. 1302) and that

their pious foundations be protected and invested cautiously and usefully, which includes

the required consultations of the finance council and other concerned persons (c. 1305).

Moreover, the faithful have the right that their donations and bequests be administered

responsibly in accord with the canonical obligations binding all administrators of temporal

goods (cc. 1284, 1287). Moreover, the faithful who are employees of the Church have the

right that administrators meticulously observe the applicable civil laws according to

Church principles, and they have the right to just and decent wages that provide fittingly

for their own needs and those of their family (c. 1286).

The faithful also have some rights with respect to certain fiscal acts of the diocesan

bishop. They have the right that their bishop makes the required consultations before

placing an act of ordinary administration which is more important in light of the economic

condition of the diocese as well before placing any act of extraordinary administration

(c. 1277). Finally, the faithful have the right not to be taxed by the diocesan bishop except

in accord with the conditions of the law (c. 1263).

223

GENERAL CONCLUSION

In this study, we have identified the explicit and implicit rights common to all the

faithful in the Code of Canon Law, also noting the counterpart canons of the Code of

Canons of the Eastern Churches. In Chapter One, we focused chiefly on the fundamental

rights of the faithful, that is, the “constitutional” rights of the faithful in Title I of Book II

of the Code. This chapter surveyed the Church’s teaching and canon law on the

fundamental rights of the faithful as this is developed in papal teachings, the documents of

Vatican II, and in cc. 208-223 of the 1983 Code.

The focus of Chapter Two was the rights of all the faithful in Book III of the Code

with respect to the teaching office of the Church (the munus docendi Ecclesiae). We chiefly

considered rights to the ministry of the divine word, especially preaching and catechetical

instruction (cc. 756-780); to participate in the mission action of the Church (cc. 781-792);

to Catholic education, especially by means of schools, Catholic universities and other

institutes of higher studies, and ecclesiastical universities and faculties (cc. 781-821); and

to sound Catholic doctrine in instruments of social communication and books in particular

(cc. 822-832).

Chapter Three surveyed the rights in Book IV of the Code, titled “The Sanctifying

Office of the Church” (De Ecclesiae munere sanctificandi). The chapter was divided into

seven parts: rights to the official liturgical celebrations of the Church, explicit rights to the

sacraments, implicit rights to the sacraments, rights to the sacraments in danger of death,

rights to preparation for the sacraments, rights to Church funerals, and rights concerning

churches.

General Conclusion: Rights Common to All the Faithful 224

The focus of Chapter Four was on the office of governing, or ruling (munus

regendi), which consists of all the Church’s activities other than those of the teaching and

sanctifying offices. It includes Church governance, financial administration, and many

apostolic activities. The entire body of canon law, including the two Codes, pertains to the

munus regendi. This final chapter dealt with two books of the Code in which the faithful

have explicit and implicit rights in the munus regendi. These are Book II of the Code, titled

“The People of God” (De Populo Dei), and Book V, “The Temporal Goods of the Church”

(De bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus). Other rights of the munus regendi common to the

christifideles are found in Books I, VI, and VII of the Code (Appendices One and Two).

Explicit Rights

In our study, we have identified a total of forty-six canons that explicitly name

rights common to all the faithful. The Code uses various expressions to indicate explicitly

a right. The word ius indicates a strict right except when the word is used in its objective

sense, that is, when it refers to a law or another objective norm (custom, general

administrative norm, statute). The Code uses expressions like ius est, ius habet, iure

gaudet, etc. It also applies equivalent terminology to indicate explicitly a right, such as fas

est, integrum est, libertas est, potest/possunt, etc. A special comment needs to be said about

potest/possunt. If the Latin word should be translated by the English word “may,” it

indicates a right. When the legislator says the faithful may do such and such, he accords

them the right to do so. The same word potest, however, should be translated by the English

word “can” when indicating a capability or power to do something. If, for instance, the

legislator says all the faithful can be deputed for some ecclesial service, it means they are


radically capable of exercising that service, not that they have the right to do it; for they

must first be deputed. Thus, the same word in Latin may indicate a right, or it may not,

depending on the meaning of the law.

Fundamental rights. Part I of Book II of the Code, in Title I, treats the fundamental

rights that are common to all the baptized faithful. This title names twelve explicit rights.

The terms that are employed by the legislator in these canons are ius habent (cc. 211, 216,

217), ius est (cc. 212, §3, 213, 214, 221, §2, 221, §3), iure gaudent (c. 219), iusta libertate

fruuntur (c. 218), and integrum est (c. 212, §2, 215).

Munus docendi. There are four explicit rights of the faithful in the canons of Book

III of the Code of Canon Law. The legislator uses the term ius in three canons (cc. 747, §1,

800, §1, 807) and the equivalent term fas est in one canon (c. 762). Canon 748, §1 uses the

term iure gaudent, but it refers to a natural right of all people (omnes homines), not just the

baptized christifideles.

Munus sanctificandi. The canons of Book IV are related to the Church’s mission of

sanctification. It explicitly names seven rights that are common to all the faithful. Only one

of these canons has the word ius (c. 1214). Five of the canons use the word potest or

possunt, meaning “may” (cc. 865, §2, 912, 917, 923, and 994). One canon uses integrum

est (c. 991).

Munus regendi. Books I, II, V, VI, and VII of the Code of Canon Law have some

canons recognizing rights common to all the faithful in various dimensions of the munus

regendi of the Church. In the pertinent sections of these books, seventeen rights common

to all the faithful are explicitly named. The terms employed here by the legislator for the

rights include ius (cc. 178, 309, 1725) and equivalent terminology. The term potest/ possunt


is used in ten canons (cc. 61, 98, §1; 111, §2,112, §1, 2°, 112, §1, 3°, 187, 189, §4, 310,

1299, §1, 1727, §1). Other terms used are integrum est (cc. 299, §1, 1261, §1), valent (a

synonym for possunt in c. 310), and a rare use of facultas to indicate a right (c. 1720, §1).

Implicit Rights

In our study of the implicit rights of the faithful, we have recognized and identified

a total of 144 implicit rights. Implicit means that no right is explicitly mentioned, but the

right is implied and may be inferred. These implicit rights can be categorized in two ways.

The first is to distinguish those rights flowing from the obligations of officeholders and

ministers from those rights based on other requirements of the law. The second way is to

look for certain grammatical indicators that frequently imply a right in canon law.

Rights flowing from the obligations of office holders and ministers. Whenever an

officeholder or another has a legal obligation to fulfill on behalf of the community, the

faithful have a corresponding right that this duty be fulfilled, but this right is implicit. These

implicit rights are very numerous in the Code. Just limiting our count to the rights common

to all the faithful, we find forty-three rights flowing from the obligations of office holders

and ministers. For instance, with regard to the law on pious wills in Book V, the competent

authorities are obliged to fulfill them faithfully. Fidelity to the intention of the donor is a

cardinal principle of canon law, and it extends even to the manner of the administration

and distribution of the goods to be diligently fulfilled (diligentissime impleantur, c.1300).

The faithful thus have the right that their wills be fulfilled faithfully upon their death.

Rights based on other requirements of the law. Not all implicit rights are based on

obligations of office holders and ministers. Many are implied in other requirements of the


law. For example, c. 902 accords priests the right to concelebrate the Eucharist “unless the

welfare of the Christian faithful requires or suggests otherwise.” This excepting clause is a

restriction on the right of priests which implies several rights of the faithful as discussed

above in the third chapter. We have identified a total of 101 canons that have implicit rights

in this category.

Grammatical indicators implying strong rights.693 Appendix Three demonstrates

another way of identifying implicit rights. This is to categorize them by certain

grammatical indicators of strong rights and milder rights as well as rights implied in canons

with no grammatical indicators. The first category consists of laws with forceful verbs and

expressions that imply rights. These fall into two kinds. The first is that of canons with

strong commands, prohibitions, requirements, or assertions in the present tense indicative

mood, in either the active or passive voice. These include words such as debet, tenetur,

oportet, nequit, non postest, nefas est, officium est, etc. There are fifty-two canons with

such verbs that imply rights common to all the faithful (Appendix Three, no. I A).

The second kind of forceful expression, less common, is the passive periphrastic,

which is said to be “the strongest Latin command” translated by the English “must.”694 Six

canons imply a right of the faithful by the use of this grammatical construction (Appendix

Three, no. I B). The passive periphrastic conjugation is composed of the future passive

participle in the nominative case and esse in the required tense,695 which is always the

present tense in canon law (est, sunt). The passive peripharastic imposes a grave obligation.

693 For this treatment, we mainly rely on HUELS, Liturgy and Law, 234-236. 694 Foreword to the Translation, Code of Canon Law Latin-English Edition, Washington, CLSA,

1998xix. 695 John F. COLLINS, A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin, Washington, D.C., The Catholic University

of America Press, 1985, 145.


For example, c. 1722 allows the ordinary at any stage of the penal process to place certain

restrictions on someone accused of committing a crime.696 The canon then adds that, once

the reason for them ceases, “all these measures must be revoked.” The legislator

admonishes the ordinary with the strongest possible command: omnia sunt revocanda.

It stands to reason that, when the legislator uses a strong expression to impose a

grave obligation on an office holder or minister, or to establish forcefully another

requirement of the law, an equally strong right of the faithful is implied. Such rights are

quite specific, and their violation is more clearly recognizable than rights in the next

category in which less forceful grammatical expressions are used in the law. It follows that

these strong rights, at least theoretically, should be more readily subject to vindication than

those implied in canons with milder obligations and requirements.

Exhortations and mild requirements of the law implying rights. There are an

additional two kinds of grammatical expressions that often imply rights in canon law, but

these are mild commands in the present subjunctive and the use of the predicate genitive.

A very common construction in canon law is the present subjunctive, often called the

jussive subjunctive, because it is a form of command, even if mild. In canon law, the

present subjunctive frequently is an exhortation directed to an office holder. It is used

mostly to highlight the general requirements and goals of the office rather than to lay down

specific duties or actions that must be undertaken. It is translated into English as should, or

696 Can. 1722. Ad scandala praevenienda, ad testium libertatem protegendam et ad iustitiae cursum

tutandum, potest Ordinarius, audito promotore iustitiae et citato ipso accusato, in quolibet processus stadio

accusatum a sacro ministerio vel ab aliquo officio et munere ecclesiastico arcere, ei imponere vel interdicere

commorationem in aliquo loco vel territorio, vel etiam publicam sanctissimae Eucharistiae participationem

prohibere; quae omnia, causa cessante, sunt revocanda, eaque ipso iure finem habent, cessante processu

poenali.


is to, do such and such. The Code has fifty-six canons with such exhortations that imply

rights of the Christian faithful (Appendix Three, no. II A).

A second mild form of grammatical expression which may imply a right is the

predicate genitive, found in three canons with respect to implicit rights of the faithful

(Appendix Three, no. II B). This Latin construction consists of a noun in the genitive case,

plus est or sit and an infinitive. It can indicate a competency or an obligation. If the latter,

a right is implied, but the right is not a strong one. For example, c. 767, §4 says that “it is

for the pastor or rector of a church to take care” (parochi aut ecclesiae rectoris est curare)

that the prescripts on the homily are observed conscientiously. This is clearly an obligation

that implies the right of the faithful to have homilies given in accord with the law. However,

it is a general obligation, not a specific one as seen in the second paragraph of that same

canon, which forcefully requires a homily at all Masses on Sundays and holy days.

No grammatical indications. Finally, Appendix Three has a list of twenty-five

canons that imply rights but without any of the above grammatical indicators (no. III). The

rights can only be known after studying the canon in text and context and, as may be

necessary, consulting canonical commentaries and specialized studies to understand the

meaning and import of the canon.

Vindicating rights. As noted in the Introduction to this study, the vindication of

rights by means of a formal or informal, canonically recognized procedure is beyond the

scope of this study. Nevertheless, a few observations stemming from the results of this

thesis are in order. The first is based on the categories of law in Appendix Three. The

highly imperative, forceful expressions of the law which impose specific requirements,

obligations, or prohibitions imply rights that are equally important, and their violation,


whether due to negligence or malice (cf. c. 128), is a serious canonical offence (though in

most cases not a crime). In contrast, the rights implied in an exhortation using the present

subjunctive usually follow from general responsibilities, not precise obligations. The

faithful, in vindicating their rights, and the canonical advocate in assisting them, need to

be aware of this distinction, as the right implied in a law in this latter category is not easily

vindicated because of its very lack of specificity.

To illustrate this, we need only take as an example the canon just mentioned on the

liturgical homily. Using the strongest language, c. 767, §2 speaks about the canonical

obligation to preach the homily. The homily must be given (homilia habenda est) at all

Masses on Sundays and holy days of obligation that are celebrated with a gathering of

people. The canon adds that it cannot be omitted except for a grave cause. Certainly, the

habitual neglect of this requirement by one’s pastor would be an abuse of the liturgy and

the violation of the right of the faithful to have a homily as required by law. If parishioners

were to become aware that this is a violation of their right and would then seek the services

of a canonist, he or she should advise them to report this neglect to the competent authority

and, if the latter fails to rectify the situation or does not reply (cf. c. 57), to take

administrative recourse.

On the other hand, it would be more difficult to identify a violation of rights based

solely on c. 767, §4, which says that it is for the pastor or rector of a church to take care

that the prescripts on the homily are observed conscientiously. This general obligation

implies a right but, in case of an alleged violation of the canon, the specific laws that are

not being observed would have to be identified before one could assert that this right was

not being met.


The vindication and defense of rights is itself a fundamental, constitutional right of

all the faithful (c. 221, §1), as discussed in Chapter One.697 For the most part, however, the

Christian faithful are unaware that they have rights in the Church; much the less do they

know how rights may be vindicated. So, it falls to the canonist, principally, to educate the

faithful about their rights in the Church, both those that are explicit and the many more that

are implicit. For greatest effect, this formation should begin with those faithful in positions

of pastoral leadership. Such education should include an overview of the various means for

resolving disputes, grievances and violations of rights.

This thesis has identified a total of 190 canons of the Latin Code that establish or

declare rights common to all the christifideles. We have yet to mention, however, the

important canon 1752 that refers to the “supreme law” of the Church, the salus animarum.

It is our earnest desire that education of the faithful about their rights can move the Church

a step forward to achieving its mission of the salvation of souls along our journey to the

kingdom of God.

697 Commenting on canon 221, Robert Kaslyn expresses the view that administrative tribunals would

really help to resolve a lot of issues that affect the faithful, among them, employment issues, school and

pastoral issues, disputes involving the liturgy or reception of the sacraments, etc. KASLYN, Commentary on

c. 221, 280.

232

APPENDIX ONE

RIGHTS OF ALL THE FAITHFUL IN BOOK I OF THE CIC

The rights that are common to all the christifideles or all the Catholic faithful are in

several Titles of Book I of the Code of Canon Law. (1) The canons pertaining to coercive laws

and administrative acts are applicable to all the Catholic faithful but not to anyone else (cf. c.

11). In contrast, even non-baptized persons may benefit from favourable laws and

administrative acts, such as certain rescripts. (2) Most of the canons on physical persons apply

to the Catholic faithful. (3) The canons on ecclesiastical offices apply mainly to all the baptized

eligible for a given office, since communion with the Catholic Church is required for any office

(c. 149, §1), whereas full communion is required only for specified offices (those restricted to

a cleric or religious, or when full communion is explicitly required by law).

Laws and Administrative Acts

Canon 18. Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of

rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict

interpretation.698

– The right to have a strict interpretation of onerous laws and a broad interpretation of

favorable laws (implicit).

Canon 36 §1. An administrative act must be understood according to the

proper meaning of the words and the common manner of speaking. In a case

of doubt, those which refer to litigation, pertain to threatening or inflicting

penalties, restrict the rights of a person, injure the acquired rights of others,

or are contrary to a law which benefits private persons are subject to a strict

interpretation; all others are subject to a broad interpretation.

§2. An administrative act must not be extended to other cases besides those

expressed.699

–The right to a strict interpretation of onerous administrative acts and to a broad interpretation

of favourable acts (implicit).

698 Cf. CCEO, c. 1500; CIC, c. 18. Leges quae poenam statuunt aut liberum iurium exercitum

coarctant aut exceptionem a lege continent, strictae subsunt interpretationi. 699 Cf. CCEO, c. 1512, §§1-2; CIC, c. 36 §1. Actus administrativus intellegendus est secundum

propriam verborum significationem et communem loquendi usum; in dubio, qui ad lites referuntur aut ad

poenas comminandas infligendasve attinent aut personae iura aliis quaesita laedunt aut adversantur legi

incommodum privatorum, strictae subsunt interpretationi; ceteri omnes, latae.

§2. Actus administrativus non debet ad alios casus praeter expressos extendi.

Apendix 1: Rights Common to All the Faithful in Book I 233

– The right not to be subject to an onerous administrative act that had been directed to another

(implicit).

Canon 38. An administrative act, even if it is a rescript given motu proprio,

lacks effect insofar as it injures the acquired right of another or is contrary

to a law or approved custom, unless the competent authority has expressly

added a derogating clause.700

–The right that an acquired right not be lost by an administrative act without a derogating

clause (implicit).

Canon 50. Before issuing a singular decree, an authority is to seek out the

necessary information and proofs and, insofar as possible, to hear those

whose rights can be injured.701

–The right to a fair process before a decree is issued (implicit).

Canon 57 §3. A presumed negative response does not exempt the

competent authority from the obligation of issuing the decree and even of

repairing the damage possibly incurred, according to the norm of c. 128.702

–The right, in administrative silence, to obtain a requested decree and to the reparation of

damage caused by its non-issuance (implicit).

Canon 61. Unless it is otherwise evident, a rescript can be requested for

another even without the person’s assent and has force before the person’s

acceptance, without prejudice to contrary clauses.703

–The right to request a rescript for another (explicit = potest impetrari).

Canon 71. No one is bound to use a rescript given only in his or her favor

unless bound to do so by a canonical obligation from another source.704

–The right not to have to use a rescript (implicit = nemo tenetur).

700 Cf. CCEO, c. 1515; CIC, c. 38. Actus administrativus, etiam si agatur de rescripto Motu

proprio dato, effectu caret quatenus ius quaesitum laedit aut legi consuetudinive probatae contrarium est, nisi

auctoritas competens expresse clausulam derogatoriam addiderit. 701 Cf. CCEO, c. 1517, §1; CIC, c. 50. Antequam decretum singulare ferat, auctoritas necessarias

notitias et probationes exquirat, atque, quantum fieri potest, eos audiat quorum iura laedi possint. 702 Cf. CCEO, c. 1518; CIC, c. 57, §3. Responsum negativum praesumptum non eximit

competentem auctoritatem ab obligatione decretum ferendi, immo et damnum forte illatum, ad normam can.

128, reparandi. 703 Cf. CCEO, c. 1528; CIC, c. 61. Nisi aliud constet, rescriptum impetari potest pro alio, etiam

praeter eius assensum, et valet ante eiusdem acceptationem, salvis clausulis contrariis. 704 Cf. CIC, c. 71. Nemo uti tenetur rescripto in sui dumtaxat favorem concesso, nisi aliunde

obligatione canonica ad hoc teneatur.


Canon 77. A privilege must be interpreted according to the norm of can.

36, §1, but that interpretation must always be used by which the

beneficiaries of a privilege actually obtain some favor.705

–The right to a favourable interpretation of a privilege (implicit).

Physical Persons

Canon 98 §1. A person who has reached majority has the full exercise of

his or her rights.706

–The right of an adult to the full exercise of one’s rights (explicit = habet suorum iurium

exercitium).

Canon 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person

acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.

§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary

where the transient is actually residing.

§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-

domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.707

–The right to a parish and diocese and the rights that go with them in virtue of domicile and

quasi-domicile (implicit).

Canon 111 §2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year

of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual

Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she

has chosen.708

–The right to choose freely the Church sui iuris in which to be baptized (explicit =libere potest

eligere).

Canon 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in

another Church sui iuris:

705 Cf. CCEO, c. 1512, §3; CIC, c. 77. Privilegium interpretandum est ad normam can. 36, §1; sed

ea semper adhibenda est interpretatio, qua privilegio aucti aliquam revera gratiam consequantur. 706Cf. CCEO, c. 910; CIC, c. 98, §1. Persona maior plenum habet suorum iurium exercitium. 707 Cf. CCEO, c. 916; CIC, c. 107, §1. Tum per domicilium tum per quasi-domicilium suum quisque

parochum et Ordinarium sortitur.

§2. Proprius vagi parochus vel Ordinarius est parochus vel Ordinarius loci in quo vagus actu commoratur.

§3. Illius quoque qui non habet nisi domicilium vel quasi-domicilium dioecesanum, parochus proprius est

parochus loci in quo actu commoratur. 708 Cf. CCEO, c. 30; CIC, c. 111, §2. Quilibet baptizandus qui quartum decimum aetatis annum

expleverit, libere potest eligere ut in Ecclesia latina vel in alia Ecclesia sui iuris baptizetur; quo in casu, ipse

ad eam Ecclesiam pertinet quam elegerit.


2° a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she

is transferring to the Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage

has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

3° before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those

mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the

Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another Church sui iuris; on

completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin

Church.709

–The right of a spouse in an inter-ecclesial marriage to transfer to the Church sui iuris of the

other spouse (implicit).

–The right to return to the Latin Church when the marriage has ended (explicit = libere potest

redire).

–The right of children to return to the Latin Church sui iuris (explicit = possunt ad redire).

Offices

Canon 151.The provision of an office which entails the care of souls is not to

be deferred without a grave cause.710

–The right of the faithful to the cura animarum (implicit).

Canon 159. No one is to be presented unwillingly; therefore, a person who is

proposed for presentation and questioned about his or her intention can be

presented unless the person declines within eight useful days.711

–The right not to accept presentation for an office (unless required by vow or promise).

Canon 178. The person elected who has accepted an election which does not

need confirmation obtains the office in full right immediately; otherwise, the

person acquires only the ius ad rem.712

709 Cf. CCEO, c. 32, 33, 30, 34; CIC, c. 112, §1. Post receptum baptismum, alii Ecclesiae sui

iuris ascribuntur:

2° coniux qui, in matrimonio ineundo vel eo durante, ad Ecclesiam sui iuris alterius coniugis se transire

declaraverit; matrimonio autem soluto, libere potest ad latinam Ecclesiam redire;

3° filii eorum, de quibus in nn. 1 et 2, ante decimum quartum aetatis annum completum itemque, in

matrimonio mixto, filii partis catholicae quae ad aliam Ecclesiam sui iuris legitime transierit; adepta vero hac

aetate, iidem possunt ad latinam Ecclesiam redire. 710 Cf. CIC, c. 151. Provisio officii animarum curam secumferentis, sine gravi causa ne differatur. 711 Cf. CIC, c. 159. Nemo invitus praesentetur; quare qui praesentandus proponitur, mentem suam

rogatus, nisi intra octiduum utile recuset, praesentari potest. 712 Cf. CCEO, c. 958; CIC, c. 178. Electus, acceptata electione, quae confirmatione non egeat,

officium pleno iure statim obtinet; secus non aquirit nisi ius ad rem.


–The right to decline an election (implicit).

–The right, upon acceptance of an election, to obtain the office immediately if confirmation is

not needed (explicit = officium pleno iure statim obtinet).

–The right, if the election needs confirmation, to seek the confirmation (explicit = ius ad rem).

Canon 179 §2. The competent authority cannot deny confirmation if the

person elected has been found suitable according to the norm of can. 149,

§1, and the election was conducted according to the norm of law.713

–The right to confirmation of an election if the elect is suitable and the election was lawful

(implicit).

Canon 187. Anyone responsible for oneself (sui compos) can resign from an

ecclesiastical office for a just cause.714

–The right to resign from office for a just cause (explicit = potest renuntiare).

Canon 189 §4. A resignation can be revoked by the one resigning as long as it

has not taken effect; once it has taken effect it cannot be revoked, but the one

who resigned can obtain the office by some other title.715

–The right to revoke a resignation not yet effective (explicit = revocari potest).

–The right to obtain an office again by some other title (explicit = consequi potest).

713 Cf. CCEO, c. 960; CIC, c. 179, §2. Competens auctoritas, si electum repperit idoneum ad normam

can. 149, § 1, et electio ad normam iuris fuerit peracta, confirmationem denegare nequit. 714 Cf. CCEO, c. 967; CIC, c. 187. Quisquis sui compos potest officio ecclesiastico iusta de causa

renuntiare. 715 Cf. CCEO, c. 971; CIC, c. 189, §4. Renuntiatio, quamdiu effectum sortita non fuerit, a renuntiante

revocari potest; effectu secuto revocari nequit, sed qui renuntiavit, officium alio ex titulo consequi potest.

237

APPENDIX TWO

RIGHTS OF ALL THE FAITHFUL IN PENAL LAW AND PROCEDURES

BOOK VI AND PART IV OF BOOK VII OF THE CIC

All the rights in Book VI of the Code of Canon Law are rights common to all the

Catholic christifideles, as only they are subject to penalties imposed by law, by judge, or

by competent ecclesiastical authority. It follows, therefore, that the rights in the canons on

the penal procedure in Book VII of the Code (cc. 1717-1731) are also common only to the

Catholic faithful. The other rights in Book VII are not exclusive to the christifideles, as

discussed in the Introduction to this work.

Rights in Book VI: Sanctions in the Church

Canon 1313 §1.If a law is changed after a delict has been committed, the

law more favorable to the accused is to be applied.716

–The right to the more favourable penal law (implicit).

Canon 1318.A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except

possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in

graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae

penalties; he is not, however, to establish censures, especially

excommunication, except with the greatest moderation and only for graver

delicts.717

–The right not to be threatened with latae sententiae penalties apart from the exceptions of

c. 1318 (implicit).

716 Cf. CCEO, c. 1412, §2; CIC, c. 1313, §1. Si post delictum commissum lex mutetur, applicanda

est lex reo favorabilior. 717 Cf. CIC, c. 1318. Latae sententiae poenas ne comminetur legislator, nisi forte in singularia

quaedam delicta dolosa, quae vel graviori esse possint scandalo vel efficaciter puniri poenis ferendae

sententiae non possint; censuras autem, praesertim excommunicationem, ne constituat, nisi maxima cum

moderatione et in sola delicta graviora.

Appendix 2: Rights Common to all the Faithful Book VI and Book VII 238

Canon 1319 §2.A penal precept is not to be issued unless the matter has

been considered thoroughly and those things established in cann. 1317

and 1318 about particular laws have been observed.718

–The right to a thorough consideration of one’s case and the observance of cc. 1317 and

1318 before a penal precept is imposed (implicit).

Canon 1321§1.No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or

precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice

or negligence.719

–The right not to be punished for a crime unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice

or of culpability (implicit).

Canon 1323. The following are not subject to a penalty when they have

violated a law or precept:

1° a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

2° a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a

law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

3° a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which

the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;

4° a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave,

or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil

or tends to the harm of souls;

5° a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for

the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another;

6° a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts

of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;

7° a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances

mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.720

–The right not to be penalized under the stated conditions (implicit).

718 Cf. CIC, c. 1319, §2.Praeceptum poenale ne feratur, nisi re mature perpensa, et iis servatis, quae

in cann. 1317 et 1318 de legibus particularibus statuuntur. 719 Cf. CCEO, c. 1414, §1; CIC, c. 1321, §1. Nemo punitur, nisi externa legis vel praecepti violatio,

ab eo commissa, sit graviter imputabilis ex dolo vel ex culpa. 720 Cf. CCEO, c. 1413, §1; CIC, c. 1323. Nulli poenae est obnoxius qui, cum legem vel praeceptum

violavit:

1° sextum decimum aetatis annum nondum explevit;

2° sine culpa ignoravit se legem vel praeceptum violare; ignorantiae autem inadvertentia et error

aequiparantur

3° egit ex vi physica vel ex casu fortuito, quem praevidere vel cui praeviso occurrere non potuit;

4° metu gravi, quamvis relative tantum, coactus egit, aut ex necessitate vel gravi incommodo, nisi tamen

actus sit intrinsece malus aut vergat in animarum damnum;

5° legitimae tutelae causa contra iniustum sui vel alterius aggressorem egit, debitum servans moderamen;

6° rationis usu carebat, firmis praescriptis cann. 1324, § 1, n. 2 et 1325;

7° sine culpa putavit aliquam adesse ex circumstantiis, de quibus in nn. 4 vel 5.


Canon 1324.The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty,

but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance

employed in its place if the delict was committed:

1° by a person who had only the imperfect use of reason;

2° by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or

another similar culpable disturbance of mind;

3° from grave heat of passion which did not precede and hinder all

deliberation of mind and consent of will and provided that the passion itself

had not been stimulated or fostered voluntarily;

4° by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years;

5° by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave,

or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil

or tends to the harm of souls;

6° by a person who acted without due moderation against an unjust

aggressor for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another;

7° against someone who gravely and unjustly provokes the person;

8° by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances

mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;

9° by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was

attached to a law or precept;

10° by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the

imputability was grave.

§2. A judge can act in the same manner if another circumstance is present

which diminishes the gravity of a delict.

§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a

latae sententiae penalty.721

–The right to a lighter penalty or a penance under the stated conditions (implicit).

721 Cf. CCEO, c. 1413, §2, 1415; CIC, c. 1324, §1. Violationis auctor non eximitur a poena, sed

poena lege vel praecepto statuta temperari debet vel in eius locum paenitentia adhiberi,si delictum patratum

sit:

1° ab eo, qui rationis usum imperfectum tantum habuerit;

2° ab eo qui rationis usu carebat propter ebrietatem aliamve similem mentis perturbationem, quae culpabilis

fuerit;

3° ex gravi passionis aestu, qui non omnem tamen mentis deliberationem et voluntatis consensum

praecesserit et impedierit, et dummodo passio ipsa ne fuerit voluntarie excitata vel nutrita;

4° a minore, qui aetatem sedecim annorum explevit;

5° ab eo, qui metu gravi, quamvis relative tantum, coactus est, aut ex necessitate vel gravi incommodo, si

delictum sit intrinsece malum vel in animarum damnum vergat;

6° ab eo, qui legitimae tutelae causa contra iniustum sui vel alterius aggressorem egit, nec tamen debitum

servavit moderamen;

7° adversus aliquem graviter et iniuste provocantem;

8° ab eo, qui per errorem, ex sua tamen culpa, putavit aliquam adesse ex circumstantiis, de quibus in can.

1323, nn. 4 vel 5;

9° ab eo, qui sine culpa ignoravit poenam legi vel praecepto esse adnexam;

10° ab eo, qui egit sine plena imputabilitate, dummodo haec gravis permanserit.

§2. Idem potest iudex facere, si qua alia adsit circumstantia, quae delicti gravitatem deminuat.

§3. In circumstantiis, de quibus in § 1, reus poena latae sententiae non tenetur.


Canon 1328 §1. A person who has done or omitted something in order to

commit a delict and yet, contrary to his or her intent, did not commit the

delict is not bound by the penalty established for a completed delict unless

the law or precept provides otherwise.722

–The right not to be penalized for attempting to commit a crime without actually

committing it (implicit).

Canon 1335. If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or

sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is

suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of

death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is

also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or

sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this

for any just cause.723

–Rights of the faithful to sacraments, sacramentals, and acts of governance from a minister

or authority who is under censure (implicit).

Canon 1341. An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or

administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has

ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral

solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the

offender.724

–The right to avoid a penal process except as a last resort (implicit).

Canon 1342 §2. Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by

decree, nor can penalties be so applied when the law or precept establishing

them prohibits their application by decree.725

– The right to a judicial penal process in the stated cases (implicit).

722 Cf. CCEO, c. 1416, §1, 1415; CIC, c. 1328, §1.Qui aliquid ad delictum patrandum egit vel omisit,

nec tamen, praeter suam voluntatem, delictum consummavit, non tenetur poena in delictum consummatum

statuta, nisi lex vel praeceptum aliter caveat. 723 Cf. CCEO, c. 1435, §2; CIC, c. 1335.Si censura vetet celebrare sacramenta vel sacramentalia vel

ponere actum regiminis, vetitum suspenditur, quoties id necessarium sit ad consulendum fidelibus in mortis

periculo constitutis; quod si censura latae sententiae non sit declarata, vetitum praeterea suspenditur, quoties

fidelis petit sacramentum vel sacramentale vel actum regiminis; id autem petere ex qualibet iusta causa licet. 724 Cf. CIC, c. 1341.Ordinarius proceduram iudicialem vel administrativam ad poenas irrogandas

vel declarandas tunc tantum promovendam curet, cum perspexerit neque fraterna correctione neque

correptione neque aliis pastoralis sollicitudinis viis satis posse scandalum reparari, iustitiam restitui, reum

emendari. 725 Cf. CCEO, c. 1402, §2; CIC, c. 1342, §1. Quoties iustae obstent causae ne iudicialis processus

fiat, poena irrogari vel declarari potest per decretum extra iudicium; remedia poenalia autem et paenitentiae

applicari possunt per decretum in quolibet casu.

§2. Per decretum irrogari vel declarari non possunt poenae perpetuae, neque poenae quas lex vel praeceptum

eas constituens vetet per decretum applicare.


Canon 1347 §1. A censure cannot be imposed validly unless the offender

has been warned at least once beforehand to withdraw from contumacy and

has been given a suitable time for repentance.726

– The right not to observe an invalidly imposed censure (implicit).

Canon 1349.If a penalty is indeterminate and the law does not provide

otherwise, the judge is not to impose graver penalties, especially censures,

unless the seriousness of the case clearly demands it; he cannot, however,

impose perpetual penalties.727

– The right not to be penalized by grave penalties except according to the conditions of the

canon (implicit).

Canon 1352 §1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or

sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in

danger of death.

§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared latae sententiae penalty which

is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended

totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger

of grave scandal or infamy.728

– The right of an offender to receive the sacraments and sacramentals in danger of death

(implicit).

– The right of an offender to the non-observance of the penalty in danger of grave scandal

or infamy (implicit).

Canon 1353. An appeal or recourse from judicial sentences or from decrees,

which impose or declare a penalty, has a suspensive effect.729

– The right to the non-observance of a penalty during an appeal or a recourse (implicit).

726 Cf. CCEO, c. 1407, §§1-2; CIC, c. 1347, §1. Censura irrogari valide nequit, nisi antea reus semel

saltem monitus sit ut a contumacia recedat, dato congruo ad resipiscentiam tempore. 727 Cf. CCEO, c. 1409, §2; CIC, c. 1349. Si poena sit indeterminata neque aliud lex caveat, iudex

poenas graviores, praesertim censuras, ne irroget, nisi casus gravitas id omnino postulet; perpetuas autem

poenas irrogare non potest. 728 Cf. CCEO, c. 1435, §1; CIC, c. 1352, § 1. Si poena vetet recipere sacramenta vel sacramentalia,

vetitum suspenditur, quamdiu reus in mortis periculo versatur.

§2. Obligatio servandi poenam latae sententiae, quae neque declarata sit neque sit notoria in loco ubi

delinquens versatur, eatenus ex toto vel ex parte suspenditur, quatenus reus eam servare nequeat sine periculo

gravis scandali vel infamiae. 729 Cf. CCEO, c. 1319, 1471, §1, 1487, §2; CIC, c. 1353.Appellatio vel recursus a sententiis

iudicialibus vel a decretis, quae poenam quamlibet irrogent vel declarent, habent effectum suspensivum.


Canon 1362, §1.Prescription extinguishes a criminal action after three

years unless it concerns:

1° delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;

2° an action arising from the delicts mentioned in cann. 1394, 1395, 1397,

and 1398, which have a prescription of five years;

3° delicts which are not punished in the common law if particular law has

established another period for prescription.730

– The right not to be prosecuted once a certain time has passed (implicit).

Canon 1363 §1. Prescription extinguishes an action to execute a penalty if

the offender is not notified of the executive decree of the judge mentioned

in can. 1651 within the time limits mentioned in can. 1362; these limits are

to be computed from the day on which the condemnatory sentence became

res iudicata.

§2. Having observed what is required, the same is valid if the penalty was

imposed by extrajudicial decree.731

– The right not to be penalized except under the conditions of the canon (implicit).

Rights in Book VII, Part IV: The Penal Process

Canon 1717 §2.Care must be taken so that the good name of anyone is not

endangered from this investigation.732

– The right to a good reputation (implicit).

Canon 1719. The acts of the investigation, the decrees of the ordinary

which initiated and concluded the investigation, and everything which

preceded the investigation are to be kept in the secret archive of the curia if

they are not necessary for the penal process.733

–Rights to privacy and a good reputation (implicit).

730 Cf. CCEO, c. 1152, §§2-3; CIC, c. 1362, §1. Actio criminalis praescriptione extinguitur triennio,

nisi agatur:

1° de delictis Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis;

2° de actione ob delicta de quibus in cann. 1394, 1395, 1397, 1398, quae quinquennio praescribitur;

3° de delictis quae non sunt iure communi punita, si lex particularis alium praescriptionis terminum statuerit. 731 Cf. CCEO, c. 1153; CIC, c. 1363, §1. Si intra terminos de quibus in can. 1362, ex die quo

sententia condemnatoria in rem iudicatam transierit computandos, non sit reo notificatum exsecutorium

iudicis decretum de quo in can. 1651, actio ad poenam exsequendam praescriptione extinguitur.

§2. Idem valet, servatis servandis, si poena per decretum extra iudicium irrogata sit. 732 Cf. CCEO, c. 1468, §2; CIC, c. 1717, §2.Cavendum est ne ex hac investigatione bonum

cuiusquam nomen in discrimen vocetur. 733 Cf. CCEO, c. 1470; CIC, c. 1719.Investigationis acta et Ordinarii decreta, quibus investigatio

initur vel clauditur, eaque omnia quae investigationem praecedunt, si necessaria non sint ad poenalem

processum, in secreto curiae archivo custodiantur.


Canon 1720. If the ordinary thinks that the matter must proceed by way of

extrajudicial decree:

1° he is to inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an

opportunity for self-defense, unless the accused neglected to appear after

being properly summoned.734

– The right of self-defense (explicit = data facultate sese defendendi).

Canon 1722.To prevent scandals, to protect the freedom of witnesses, and

to guard the course of justice, the ordinary, after having heard the promoter

of justice and cited the accused, at any stage of the process can exclude the

accused from the sacred ministry or from some office and ecclesiastical

function, can impose or forbid residence in some place or territory, or even

can prohibit public participation in the Most Holy Eucharist. Once the

cause ceases, all these measures must be revoked; they also end by the law

itself when the penal process ceases.735

–The right to have all restrictions revoked once the cause ceases (implicit).

–The right not to have to observe said restrictions when the penal process ceases (implicit).

Canon 1723 §1. The judge who cites the accused must invite the accused

to appoint an advocate according to the norm of can. 1481, §1 within the

time limit set by the judge.

§2. If the accused does not make provision, the judge is to appoint an

advocate before the joinder of the issue; this advocate will remain in this

function as long as the accused does not appoint an advocate personally.736

–The right of the defendant to the services of counsel (implicit).

734 Cf. CCEO, c. 1486; CIC, c. 1720. Si Ordinarius censuerit per decretum extra iudicium esse

procedendum:

1° reo accusationem atque probationes, data facultate sese defendendi, significet, nisi reus, rite vocatus,

comparere neglexerit; 735 Cf. CCEO, c. 1473; CIC, c. 1722.Ad scandala praevenienda, ad testium libertatem protegendam

et ad iustitiae cursum tutandum, potest Ordinarius, audito promotore iustitiae et citato ipso accusato, in

quolibet processus stadio accusatum a sacro ministerio vel ab aliquo officio et munere ecclesiastico arcere,

ei imponere vel interdicere commorationem in aliquo loco vel territorio, vel etiam publicam sanctissimae

Eucharistiae participationem prohibere; quae omnia, causa cessante, sunt revocanda, eaque ipso iure finem

habent, cessante processu poenali. 736 Cf. CCEO, c. 1474; CIC, c. 1723, §1. Iudex reum citans debet eum invitare ad advocatum, ad

normam can. 1481, §1, intra terminum ab ipso iudice praefinitum, sibi constituendum.

§2. Quod si reus non providerit, iudex ante litis contestationem advocatum ipse nominet, tamdiu in munere

mansurum quamdiu reus sibi advocatum non constituerit.


Canon 1725.In the discussion of the case, whether done in written or oral

form, the accused, either personally or through the advocate or procurator,

always has the right to write or speak last.737

–The right of the accused always to have the last word in self-defense (explicit = accusatus

semper ius habeat).

Canon 1726.If at any grade and stage of the penal trial it is evidently

established that the accused did not commit the delict, the judge must

declare this in a sentence and absolve the accused even if it is also

established that criminal action has been extinguished.738

–The right to a verdict of non-guilty when evidently established by facts (implicit).

Canon 1727 §1.The accused can propose an appeal even if the sentence

dismissed the accused only because the penalty was facultative or because

the judge used the power mentioned in cann. 1344 and 1345.739

–The right to appeal a conviction even if no penalty is imposed (explicit = proponere

potest).

Canon 1728 §2.The accused is not bound to confess the delict nor can an

oath be administered to the accused.740

–The right not to confess a delict and right not to take an oath (implicit).

737 Cf. CCEO, c. 1478, §2; CIC, c. 1725.In causae discussione, sive scripto haec fit sive ore,

accusatus semper ius habeat ut ipse vel eius advocatus vel procurator postremus scribat vel loquatur. 738 Cf. CCEO, c. 1482; CIC, c. 1726.In quolibet poenalis iudicii gradu et stadio, si evidenter constet

delictum non esse a reo patratum, iudex debet id sententia declarare et reum absolvere, etiamsi simul constet

actionem criminalem esse extinctam. 739 Cf. CCEO, c. 1482; CIC, c. 1727, §1.Appellationem proponere potest reus, etiam si sententia

ipsum ideo tantum dimiserit, quia poena erat facultativa, vel quia iudex potestate usus est, de qua in cann.

1344 et 1345. 740 Cf. CCEO, c. 1471, §2; CIC, c. 1728, §2.Accusatus ad confitendum delictum non tenetur, nec

ipsi iusiurandum deferri potest.

245

APPENDIX THREE

GRAMMATICAL INDICATORS OF IMPLICIT RIGHTS IN CANON LAW *

I. Forceful Expressions in the Law Implying Rights

A. Canons with strong commands, prohibitions, requirements, and assertions in the

present tense indicative mood, active or passive voice

57, §3 non eximit competentem auctoritatem

179, §2 denegare nequit

220 nemini licet

386 proponere et illustrare tenetur

388 debet applicare

392, §1 promovere et urgere tenetur

395, §1 tenetur lege

396, §1 tenetur obligatione (also 528, §1)

528, §2 invigilare tenetur

776 curare tenetur

773 proprium et grave officium est

794, §2 officium est omnia disponendi

810, §1 officium est

810, §2 officium habent

823 officum et ius est invigilandi

827, §2 adhiberi non possunt

843, §1 denegare non possunt

846, §1 serventur nemo addat, demat aut mutet

859 conferri potest et debet

885 obligatione tenetur curandi ut

914 parochi officium est curandi

* This appendix is discussed in the General Conclusion in the section on implicit rights.

Apendix 3: Grammatical Indicators of Implicit Rights in Canon Law 246

983, §1 nefas est prodere

984, §1 omnino prohibetur

984, §2 nullo modo uti potest

986, §1 obligatione tenetur

986, §2 obligatione tenetur

1177, §1 celebrari debent

1267, §2 repudiari nequeunt

1267, §3 nonnisi destinari possunt

1277 audire debet

1284 debet

1287 tenentur exhibendi

1299, §2 moneri debent

1301 vigilare potest ac debet

1302 debet exigere

1321, §1 nemo punitur

1323 nulli poenae est obnoxius

1324 temperari debet vel adhiberi

1328, §1 non tenetur

1335 vetitum suspenditur

1342, §2 irrogari vel declarari non possunt

1347, §1 irrogari valide nequit

1349 irrogare non potest

1352, §1 vetitum suspenditur

1352, §2 obligatio suspenditur

1353 habent effectum

1362, §1 actio extinguitur (also 1363, §1)

1717, §2 cavendum est ne vocetur

1723 debet invitare

1726 debet declarare absolvere

1728, §2 non tenetur


B. Canons with the passive periphrastic

767, §2 habenda est

1176, §1 donandi sunt

1176, §2 celebrandae sunt

1183, §1 accensendi sunt

1720 esse procedendum

1722 sunt revocanda

II. Exhortations and Mild Requirements of the Law Implying Rights

A. Canons with the jussive subjunctive

50 auctoritas exquirat

151 ne differatur

308 nemo dimittatur

383, §1 sollicitum se praebeat

386, §1 curet ut tradatur

386, §2 tueatur

387 promovere studeat

392, §2 advigilet

394 foveat atque curet

489, §2 destruantur

491, §1 curet ut serventur

528, §2 consulat sit; annitatur ut

535 prospiciat conscribantur atque asserventur

536 constituatur

537 habeatur

768 propanant

768, §2 impertiant

769 proponatur

770 ordinent

778 curentut impertiatur


779 tradatur

802, §1 est curare ut condantur

802, §2 provideat ut condantur

804, §2 sollicitus sit deputentur

806, §2 curent ut sit

811, §1 curet ut erigatur

811, §2 habeantur

822, §1 adhibere satagant

836 excitare et illustrare sedulo curent

848 nihil petat

861, §2 solliciti sint

863 deferatur

866 confirmetur atque participet

867, §2 baptizetur

890 curent ut instruantur et accedant

891 conferatur

918 ministretur

921 reficiantur

922 ne differatur; advigilent ut reficiantur

937 vacare possint

964, §3 ne excipiantur

980 ne denegetur nec differatur

1001 curent subleventur

1167, §2 serventur (also 1181)

1177, §3 celebrentur

1188 maneat exponantur

1221 sit

1286 servent praestant, providere valeant

1299,§2 serventur

1305 deponantur et custodiantur

1318 ne comminetur ne constituat


1319, §2 ne feratur

1341 promovendam curet

1349 ne irroget

1719 custodiantur

1723, §2 nominet

B. Canons with the predicate genitive

(It is for the ____ to do ____.)

767, §4 parochi est curare

775, §1 Episcopi dioecesani est edicere

822, §2 pastoribus curae sit edocere

III. Rights Implied with No Grammatical Indicators

18

36

38

71

77

107

112, §1

159

178

208

221, §1

306

307, §2

321

781

791, 4° (read with 781)

834

844, §4


868, §2

889, §2

902

913, §2

976

977

1004

1222, §2

1263

251

APPENDIX FOUR

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS OF THE FAITHFUL

IN THE CIC AND CCEO

EXPLICIT RIGHT IMPLICIT RIGHT

CIC CCEO CIC CCEO

- - 18 1500

- - 36 (2 rights) 1512, §§1-2

(2 rights)

- - 38 1515

- - 50 1517, §1

- - 57, §3 1518

61 1528 - -

- - 71 -

- - 77 1512, §3

98, §1 910 - -

- - 107 916

111, §2 30 - -

- - 112, §1,1° 32

112, §1, 2° 33 - -

112, §1, 3° 34 - -

- - 151 -

- - 159 -

178 (2 rights) 958 (2 rights) 178 958

- - 179, §2 961

187 967 - -

189, §4 (2

rights) - - -

- - 208 11

209 12 - -

210 13 - -

211 14 - -

212 15 - -

213 16 - -

214 17 - -

215 18 - -

216 19 - -

217 20 - -

218 21 - -

219 22 - -

- - 220 (2 rights) 23

- - 221, §1 24

221, §§2-3 24 - -

Apendix 4: Explicit and Implicit Rights of the Faithful in the CIC and CCEO 252


CIC CCEO CIC CCEO

222 25 - -

223 26 - -

299, §1 - - -

- - 306 -

- - 307, §2 578, §2

- - 308 581

309 - - -

310 - - -

- - 321 -

- - 383 192, §1; 193, §2

678, §2; 192, §3

- - 386 196

- - 387 197

- - 388 198

- - 392 198

- - 394 190

- - 395 204

- - 396 205, §1

- - 487, §2 257, §2

- - 489, §2 259, §2

- - 491 261, §§1-2

519 282, §1 - -

- - 528 289

- - 529 289, §3

- - 535 296

- - 536 & 537 295

747, §1 595, §1 - -

748, §1 - - -

748, §2 586 - -

- - 757 -

- 761 -

762 - - -

763 610, §1 - -

- - 764 610, §§2-3

- - 767, §2 614, §2

- - 768, §1 616

- - 769 626

- - 770 615

- - 773 617

- - 775, §1 622, §3

- - 775, §2 622, §2

- - 776 624



CIC CCEO CIC CCEO

- - 777 -

- - 778 -

- - 779 -

- - 781 584, §1

- - 794 628

- - 800, §1 -

- - 802 635

- - 804, §2 639

- - 806, §2 634, §3

- - 807 640, §1

- - 810 -

- - 811 643

- - 812 644

- - 822 651

- - 823 652

- - 827, §§1-2 659

- - 834 668, §1

- - 836 -

- - 843, §1 381, §2

- - 844, §4 671, §4

- - 846, §1 668, §2; 674

- - 848 -

- - 859 -

- - 861, §2 677, §2

- - 865, §2 682, §2

- - 866 -

- - 867, §2 -

- - 868, §2 681, §4

- - 883, 3° -

- - 885 -

- - 889, §2 -

- - 890 695, §1

- - 891 695, §1

- - 902 701

912 - - -

- - 913, §2 -

- - 914 -

915 712 - -

917 - - -

- - 918 713, §1

- - 921 708

- - 922 -

- - 937 -



CIC CCEO CIC CCEO

- - 964, §3 -

- - 976 725

- - 977 730

- - 980 -

- - 983 733

- - 984 734, §§1-2

- - 986, §2 735

- - 990 -

991 - - -

994 - - -

- - 1001 738, §1

- - 1004 -

1058 778 - -

- - 1167, §2 867, §2

- - 1176, §1 §2

(2 rights) 875

1177, §2 - 1177, §§ 1, 3 -

- - 1181 878

- - 1183, §1 875, 876, §§1-2

- - 1188 886

1214 869, §1 - -

- - 1221 -

- - 1222 873

- - 1254, §2 1007

1261, §1 - - -

- - 1263 1012

- - 1267, §§1-3 1016

- - 1277 263, §4

- - 1284 1020, §1-2,

1028

- - 1286 1030

- - 1287 1031

- - 1299 1043

1299, §1 1043 - -

- - 1300 1044

- - 1301 1045

- - 1302, §2 1046, §2

- - 1305 1049

- - 1313, §1 1412, §§2-3

- - 1318 -

- - 1319, §2 -

- - 1321, §1 1414



CIC CCEO CIC CCEO

- - 1323 1413, §1

- - 1324 -

- - 1328, §1 1418

- - 1335 1435

- - 1341 -

- - 1342, §2 -

- - 1347, §1 1407

- - 1349 1409, §2

- - 1352 (2 rights) -

- - 1353 1487, §2

- - 1362, §1 1152, §§2-3

- - 1363 1153

- - 1717, §2 1468

- - 1719 1470

- - 1720 1486

1720, §1 1486 - -

- - 1722 (2 rights) 1473 (2 rights)

- - 1723 1474

1725 1478 - -

- - 1726 1482

1727, §1 1481 - -

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES

Acta Apostolicae Sedis: commentarium officiale, Rome, 1909- .

Acta Congressus iuridici internationalis, November 12-17, 1934, vol. 1, Rome,

Pontificium Institutum utriusque iuris, 1937.

Acta Leonis XIII Pontificis Maximi, Rome, Ex typographia Vaticana, 1881-1903.

Acta Pii X Pontificis Maximi, Rome, Ex typographia Vaticana, 1905-1914.

Acta Sanctae Sedis, Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1865-1909, 41 vols.

BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus caritas est, 25 December 2005, in AAS 98 (2006),

217-252, English translation in Origins, 35 (2005-2006), 541-557.

______, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, 18 April 2008, in L’Osservatore

Romano, English ed., 23 April 2008, 12-13.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nairobi, Pauline Publications, 2007.

Catechismus Ecclesiae catholicae, editio typica, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

Codex canonum Ecclesiarum orientalium, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus,

Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1990, English translation Code of Canons of the

Eastern Churches, Latin-English Edition, New English Translation, prepared under

the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, DC, Canon Law

Society of America, 2001.

Codex iuris canonici, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus, Libreria editrice

Vaticana, 1983, English translation Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition,

New English Translation, prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society

of America, Washington, DC, Canon Law Society of America, 2012.

Codex iuris canonici, Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae XV

auctoritate promulgatus,Typis polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, English translation E.N.

Peters, The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, San Francisco, Ignatius

Press, 2001.

Codicis iuris canonici fontes, P. GASPARRIand J. SERÉDI (eds.), Typis polyglottis Vaticanis,

1923-1939, 9 vols.

CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, Directorium generale pro catechesi, 15 August 1997,

Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997; General Directory for Catechesis, Washington,

USCC, 1998.

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Directory

on Popular Piety and Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines, 26-28 September 2001,

Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction Il Concilio Vaticano II on

some aspects of the use of instruments of social communication in teaching the

Bibliography: Rights Common to All the Faithful 257

faith, 30 March 1992, in Communicationes, 24 (1992), 18-27; English translation

in CLD, vol. 13, 463-472.

______, Letter to Bishops concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced

and Remarried Members of the Faithful, 14 September 1994, in AAS, 86 (1994),

974-979, English translation in Origins, 24 (1994-1995), 337-341.

______, Regulations for the Investigation of Teachings (Agendi ratio in doctrinarum

examine), 29 June 1997, in AAS, 89 (1997), 830-835; CLD, vol. 14, 786-792.

FRANCIS, Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World

Evangelii gaudium,in AAS, 105 (2013), 1019–1137, English translation FRANCIS,

The Joy of the Gospel Evangelii gaudium: Apostolic Exhortation, Washington, DC,

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2013.

______, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation on love in the family Amoris laetitia, 19

March 2016, Vatican English version Amoris laetitia: On Love in the Family,

Huntington, Indiana, Our Sunday Visitor, 2016.

______, Encyclical Letter on Care for Our Common Home Laudato si’, 4 May 2015,

Libreria editrice Vaticana, 2015, English translation Encyclical on Climate Change

and Inequality: on Care for Our Common Home, London, Melville House, 2015.

______, Speech during the Papal Visit to Albania, 21 September 2014, “There can be peace

among different religions,” in L’Osservatore Romano, English ed., 26 September,

2014.

______, Hope and virtues of the little ones, during the General Audience, 7 December

2016, in L’Osservatore Romano, English ed., 9 December, 2016.

JOHN XXIII, Encyclical Letter on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity

and Liberty Pacem in terris, 11 April 1963, in AAS, 55 (1963), 257- 304, English

translation, in The Pope Speaks, 9 (1963), 13-48.

______, Encyclical Letter on Christianity and Social Progress Mater et magistra, 15 May

1961, in AAS, 53 (1961), 401-464, English translation in TPS, 7 (1962), 295-343.

JOHN PAUL II, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, On Pilgrimage, 2 October

1979, in Origins, 9 (1979-1980), 257-266.

______, Allocution to the Roman Rota, The Church and Human Rights, 17 February 1979,

in AAS, 71 (1979), 422-427, English translation in Canon Law Digest, vol. 9, 927-

933.

JOHN PAUL II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, 26 February 1983, in AAS, 75 (1983), 544-

559, English translation in W.H. WOESTMAN (ed.), Papal Allocutions to the Roman

Rota, 1939-1994, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1994, 176-180.

______, Allocution to the Roman Rota, The Right of Defense, 26 January 1989, in AAS,

81 (1989), 922-927, English translation in TPS, 34 (1989), 241-245.

______, Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new Code of Canon Law Sacrae

disciplinae leges, 25 January 1983, in AAS, 75 (1983), 7-14, English translation in

the Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition, Washington, DC, CLSA, 1999.


______, Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, 15 August 1990, in AAS, 82 (1990),

1475-1509, English translation in CLD, vol. 12, 511-532.

______, Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi tradendae, 16 October 1979, in AAS, 71, (1979),

1277-1340, English translation in Flannery2, 762-814.

______, Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America, 22 January 1999, English translation

in Origins, 28 (1998-1999), 565-592.

______, Apostolic Letter motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988, in AAS, 80 (1988), 1495-

1498, English translation in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), 149-152.

______, Encyclical LetterLaborem exercens on the ninetieth anniversary of Rerum

novarum, 14 September 1981, in AAS, 73 (1981), 577-647, English translation in

TPS, 26 (1981), 289-336.

______, Encyclical Letter Redemptor hominis, 4 March 1979, in AAS, 71 (1979), 257- 324,

English translation in Origins, 8 (1978-1979), 625-644.

______, Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus on the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum

novarum,1 May 1991, in AAS, 83 (1991), 793-867; English translation in D.J.

O’BRIEN(ed.), Catholic Social Thought, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 1992, 437-488.

______, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo rei socialis, 30 December 1987, in AAS, 80 (1988),

513-586, English translation in TPS, 33 (1988), 122-155.

______, Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus, 1 May 1991, in AAS, 83 (1991), 796-798,

English translation in Origins, 21 (1991-1992), 3-4.

______, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 7 December 1990, in AAS, 83 (1991), 249-

340, English translation in Origins, 20 (1990-1991), 543-568.

______, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, 6 August 1993, in AAS, 85 (1993), 1133-

1228, English translation, in Origins, 23 (1993-1994) 297-334.

______, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 25 March 1995, in AAS, 87 (1995), 401-522,

English translation in TPS, 40 (1995), 199-281.

______, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, 30 December 1988, in

AAS, 81 (1989), 393-521, English translation in Origins, 18 (1988-1989), 561-595.

______, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 22 November 1981, in

AAS, 74 (1982), 81-191, English translation in Flannery2, 815-898.

______, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis, 25 March 1992, in AAS,

84 (1992), 658-804, English translation in Origins, 21 (1991-1992), 717-759.

______, “Respect for Human Rights: The Secret of True Peace,” World Day of Peace

Message, 1 January 1999, in Origins, 28 (1998-1999), 489-493.

LEO XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum novarum, 15 May 1891, in AAS, 23 (1890-1891), 641-

670, English translation in The Pope and the People: Select Letters and Addresses

on Social Questions, London, Catholic Truth Society, 1937, 133-168.


NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Guidelines concerning the Academic

mandatum in Catholic Universities (canon 812), 15 June 2001, in Origins, 31

(2001-2002), 128-131.

Ordo Initiationis christianae adultorum, editio typica, 6 January 1972, Typis Polyglottis

Vaticanis, 1972; adapted English version Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults,

Washington, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, 1985.

PAUL VI, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December 1975, in AAS, 68 1976),

5-76, English translation in Flannery2, 711-761.

______, Apostolic Letter motu proprioEcclesiae sanctae, 6 August 1966, in AAS, 58

(1966), 757-787, English translation in CLD,vol. 6, 264-298.

______, Apostolic Letter Octogesima adveniens, 14 May 1971, in AAS, 63 (1971), 401-41,

English translation, in TPS, 16 (1971), 137-164.

______, Apostolic letter motu proprioMinisteria quaedam, 15 August 1972, in AAS, 64

(1972), 529-534, English translation in CLD, vol. 7, 690-695.

______, Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam, 6 August 1964, in AAS, 56 (1964), 609-659,


______, Encyclical Letter Populorum progressio, 26 March 1967, in AAS, 59 (1967), 257-

299, English translation in TPS, 12 (1967), 144-172.

______, Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, 25 July 1968, in AAS, 60 (1968), 481-503,


PIUS XI, Encyclical Letter Casti connubii, 31 December 1930, in AAS, 22 (1930), 539-592,

English translation in Fourteen Encyclicals of His Holiness Pope Pius XI, 1929-

1937, Washington, DC, National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1983, 1-47.

______, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno, 15 May 1931, in AAS, 23 (1931), 177-228,

English translation in CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals: 1939-1958, vol. 3,415-443.

______, Encyclical on Catholic Action in ItalyNon abbiamo bisogno, 29 June 1931, Italian

text in AAS, 23 (1931), 285-312; English translation in CARLEN (ed.), Papal

Encyclicals, vol. 3, 445-458.

______, Encyclical on the Church and the German Reich Mit brennender Sorge, 14 March

1937, German text in AAS, 23 (1937), 145-167; English translation in CARLEN (ed.),

Papal Encyclicals, vol. 3, 525-535.

______, Encyclical Letter Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937, in AAS 29 (1937), 65-106;

English translation in CARLEN (ed.), Papal Encyclicals, vol. 3, 537-554.

PIUS XII, Address to the National Convention of Italian Catholic Jurists, 6 December 1953,

in YZERMANS (ed.), The Major Addresses of Pope Pius XII, vol. 1,269-277.

______, Christmas Address of 1942, in YZERMANS (ed.), The Major Addresses of Pope

Pius XII, vol. 2, 51-65.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Declaration concerning the admission to

Holy Communion of the faithful who are divorced and remarried, 24 June 2000, in


Communicationes, 32 (2000), 159-162, English translation in Origins, 30 (2000-

2001), 174-175.

______, Explanatory Note concerning the application of c.223, §2 CIC, 8 December 2010,

in Communicationes, 43 (2010), 280-281.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, pastoral instruction Aetatis novæ on

socialcommunications, 22 February 1992, in AAS, 84 (1992), 447-468, English

translation in Origins, 21 (1991-1992), 669-677.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY, Directorium catechisticum generale Ad

normamdecreti, 11 April 1971, in AAS, 64 (1972), 97-176; General Catechetical

Directory, Washington, USCC, 1971.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL,Decree on the Means of Social Communication Inter mirifica,

4 December 1963, in AAS, 56 (1964), 145-153, English translation in FLANNERY1,

283-292.

______, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium, 4 December, 1963,

in AAS, 56 (1964), 97-138, English translation in Flannery1, 1-36.

______, Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 21 November,

1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), 76-85, English translation in Flannery1, 441-451.

______, Decree on the Apostolate of the Lay People Apostolicam actuositatem, 18

November 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), 76-85, English translation in Flannery1, 766-

798.

______, Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965, in AAS,

58 (1966), 929-946, English translation in Flannery1, 799-812.

______, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity Adgentes divinitus, 7 December,

1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), 947-990, English translation in Flannery1, 813-856.

______, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum educationis, 28 October 1965,

in AAS, 58 (1966), 728-756, Flannery1, 725-737.

______, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 21 November 1964, in AAS,

57 (1965), 5-75, English translation in Flannery1, 350-426.

______, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes, 7

December 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), 1025-1115, English translation in Flannery1,

903-1001.

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Charter for the Protection of

Children and Young People, revised edition, Washington, November, 2002.

BOOKS

ABBASS, J., Two Codes in Comparison, 2nd rev. ed., Rome, Pontificio Istituto Orientale,

2007.


ABBO, J.A.and J.D. HANNAN, The Sacred Canons: A Concise Presentation of the Current

Disciplinary Norms of the Church, Saint Louis, B. Herder Book Co., 1952, vol. 1.

ALAN, Z.D., Regulation of the Rights of Individuals for the Common Good: An Analysis of

Canon 223§ 2 in Light of American Constitutional Law as Articulated in Opinions

of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon Law Studies, no. 552,

Washington, DC, Catholic University of America,1997.

AMANN, T.A., Der Verwaltungsakt für Einzelfälle: Eine Untersuchung aufgrund des Codex

Iuris Canonici, Münchener Theologische Studien: Kanonistische Abteilung, no. 54,

St. Ottilien, EOS Verlag, 1997.

AMOS, J., Associations of the Christian Faithful in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a

Canonical Analysis and Evaluation, Canon Law Studies, no. 516, Catholic

University of America, Washington, DC, 1986.

AN-NA’IM, A. (ed.), Human Rights and Religious Values: An Uneasy Relationship?, Grand

Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1995.

ARRIETA, J., Governance Structures within the Catholic Church, Montreal,Wilson and

Lafleur,2000.

AYMANS, W. and E. EICHMANN,Kanonisches Recht: Lehrbuch aufgrund des Codex Iuris

Canonici,Band I, Einleitende Grundfragen und allgemeine Normen, Paderborn,

Ferdinand Schöningh, 1991.

BAILLARGEON, P., TheCanonical Rights and Duties of Parents in the Education of Their

Children, JCD dissertation,Ottawa, Saint Paul University,1986.

BARR, D.L., The Right to One’s Reputation: Applicable Legislation in the United States of

America, JCD dissertation, Ottawa, Saint Paul University,1993.

BEAL, J.P., J.A. CORIDEN, and T.J. GREEN (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon

Law, commissioned by the CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA, New York and

Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2000.

BENDITT, T., Rights, Totowa, NJ, Rowman and Littlefield, 1982.

BERGER, A., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia, American

Philosophical Society, 1953.

BLACK, H.C., Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., St. Paul, MN, West Publishing Co., 1999.

BLAT, A., Commentarium textus Codicis iuris canonici, Rome, Ex Typographia Pontificia

in Instituto Pii IX, 1921-1938.

BONNET, P. and G. GHIRLANDA,De Christifidelibus, de eorum iuribus, de laicis,

deconsociationibus, adnotationes in Codicem, Rome, Pontificia Universitas

Gregoriana, 1983.

BOUSCAREN, T.L., A. ELLIS, and F.N. KORTH, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, 4th

rev. ed., Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1966.

BOYLE, J., Church Teaching Authority: Historical and Theological Studies,Notre Dame,

IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.


BRADLEY, M., “Nemini licet...ius cuiusque personae ad propriam intimitatem tuendam

violare,” A Study of the Exercise of and the Limitations upon the Right to Protect

Privacy in theRoman Catholic Church, JCD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit

Leuven, Faculty of Canon Law, 2002.

BROWNLIE, I. (ed.), Basic Documents on Human Rights, 2nd ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press,

1981.

BUETOW, H.A., The Catholic School: Its Roots, Identity, and Future, New York, Crossroad

Publishing, 1988.

BUONOMO, V.and A. D’AMICO (eds.), People and Rights: The Findings of a Research,

Popoli e diritti: l’idea di una ricerca, Rome, Lateran Pontifical University, Mursia,

1998.

Canon Law Digest, vols. 1–6, Milwaukee, WI and New York, Bruce Pub. Co., 1934–1969;

vols. 7–10, Chicago, Canon Law Digest, 1975–1986; vols. 11–, Washington, DC,

CLSA, 1991–.

CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA, Protection of Rights of Persons in the Church, Revised

Report, Washington, DC, CLSA, 1991.

______, Due Process in Dioceses in the United States 1970-1985, Washington, DC, CLSA,

1985.

CAPARROS, E., H. AUBE, and J. THORN (eds.), The Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd ed.

rev., Montreal, Wilson and Lafleur, 2004.

CARLEN, M.C. (ed.), Papal Encyclicals, 5 vols., Wilmington, NC, McGrath, 1981.

CHIAPPETTA, L., Il Codice di diritto canonico: Commento giuridico-pastorale, 4th ed.,

Bologna, Edizioni Dehoniane, 2011.

CHIRAMEL, J. and K. BHARANIKULANGARA (eds.), The Code of Canons of the Eastern

Churches: A Study and Interpretation, Alwaye, St. Thomas Academy for Research,

1992.

CLAPP, J. E., Dictionary of the Law, New York, 2000.

Código de Derecho Canónico, Edición bilinguë anotada, a cargo del INSTITUTO MARTÍN

DE AZPILCUETA, 4thed., Pamplona, Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1987.

Codice di Diritto Canonico, Testo ufficiale e versione italiana, terza edizione riveduta,

corretta e aumentata, Rome, 1997.

CONN, J.J., “The Mandate of Can. 812 Revisited,” in James J. CONNand Luigi SABBARESE

(eds.), Iustitia in caritate. Miscellanea di studi in onore di Velasio de Paolis,

Vatican City, Urbaniana University, 2005.

CONTE A CORONATA, M., Institutiones iuris canonici, vol. 2, Turin, 1931.

CORIDEN, J.A., T.J. GREEN, and D.E. HEINTSCHEL (eds.), The Code of Canon Law: A Text

and Commentary, New York/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1985.

______, (ed.), The Case for Freedom: Human Rights in the Church, Washington, Corpus

Books, 1969.


______, An Introduction to Canon Law, New York, Paulist Press, 1991.

______, The Rights of Catholics in the Church, New York/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press,

2007.

CUSACK, B.A., A Study of the Relationship between the Diocesan Bishop and Catholic

Schools below the Level of Higher Education in the United States: Canons 801-806

of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Studies, no. 525,Washington, DC,

Catholic University of America,1988.

DANIEL, W.L., Ministerium Iustitiae. Jurisprudence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apos-

tolic Signatura, Montreal, Gratianus, Wilson & Lafleur,2011.

DE AGAR, J.T.M.,A Handbook on Canon Law, Montréal, Wilson and Lafleur, 2007.

DEELEY, R.P., The Mandate for Those Who Teach Theology in Institutes of Higher

Learning: An Interpretation of Canon 812 of the Code of Canon Law, Rome,

Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1986.

DE PAOLIS, V., De bonis Ecclesiae temporalibus: Adnotationes in Codicem, Liber V,

Rome, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1986.

______, De sanctionibus in Ecclesia: Adnotationes in Codicem, Liber VI, Rome, Editrice

Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1986.

______, I beni temporali della Chiesa, Bologna, Edizione Dehoniane, 2011.

DEL PORTILLO, A., Fidèles et laïcs dans l’Église – Fondement de leurs statuts juridiques

respectifs, 2nd ed., Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2012; English translation Faithful

and Laity in the Church, The Bases of Their Juridical Status, 2nd ed., Montréal,

Wilson & Lafleur, 2014.

DILLABOUGH, D.J., The Vatican Charter of the Family 1983: A Study of the Charter and

the Historical Social Tradition of Family Rights, Rome, Academia Alfonsiana,

1987.

DORR, D., Option for the Poor: A Hundred Years of Vatican Social Teaching, Dublin, Gill

and Macmillan, 1992.

DOSS, J.P., Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonical

Theological Study, Bangalore, Kristu Jyoti, 2007.

______, The Right to Education in Church Law, Chennai, Don Bosco Publications, 2011.

DOYLE, T.P., Rights and Responsibilities, A Catholic’s Guide to the New Code of Canon

Law, New York, Pueblo, 1983.

DRAPER, T., Human Rights, New York, H.W. Wilson, 1982.

D’SOUZA, V.G., The Juridic Condition and Status of Minors according to the Code of

Canon Law, JCD dissertation, Ottawa, Saint Paul University, 1994.

DULLES, A., The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II, New

York, Crossroad, 1999.


DUPUY, A., Words That Matter: The Holy See in Multilateral Diplomacy: Anthology

(1970-2000), Vatican City, The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, New

York, The Path to Peace Foundation, 2003.

______, Pope John Paul II and the Challenges of Papal Diplomacy: Anthology (1978-

2003), The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, New York, The Path to Peace

Foundation, 2004.

DUGAN, M.P. (ed.), Advocacy Vademecum, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, 2006.

______ (ed.), The Penal Process and the Protection of Rights in Canon Law, Montreal,

Wilson & Lafleur, 2005.

DWORKIN, R., Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1978.

ELEKWACHI, M., An Exegetical Study of Canons 204-207 in the Light of Canon 129, Rome,

Ponificia Universitas Urbaniana, 1988.

ENO, R., Teaching Authority in the Early Church,Wilmington, Glazier, 1984.

ERRÁZURIZ M., C.J., Il ‘munus docendi Ecclesiae:’ Diritti e doveri dei fedeli, Ateneo

Romano dell Santa Croce Monografie Giuridiche 4, Milan, Giuffrè Editore, 1991.

ESPELAGE, A.J. (ed.), CLSA Advisory Opinions, 1994-2000, Washington, DC, CLSA,

2002.

______, CLSA Advisory Opinions, 2001-2005, Alexandria, VA, CLSA, 2006.

EUART, S.A., Church-State Implications in the United States of Canon 812 of the 1983

Code of Canon Law, JCD dissertation, Washington, DC, Catholic University of

America, 1989.

FILIBECK, G., Human Rights in the Teaching of the Church: From John XXIII to John Paul

II, Vatican City, 1994.

FINNIS, J., Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980.

FISICHELLA, R., The New Evangelization: Responding to the Challenges of Indifference,

Balwyn, Freedom Publishing Pty. Ltd., 2012.

FLANNERY, A. (gen. ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar

Documents, vol. 1, new revised edition, Northport, New York, Costello Publishing

Company, 1996.

______,Vatican Council II: More Post-Conciliar Documents, vol. 2, new revised edition,

Northport, New York, Costello Publishing Company, 1998.

GAILLARDETZ, R. and C. CLIFFORD., Keys to the Council: Unlocking the Teaching of

Vatican II, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2012.

GAMBARI, E., Renewal in Religious Life: General Principles, Constitutions, Formation,

Boston, St. Paul Editions, 1967.

GARCIA, E., Sanctions in Church according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Manila, UST

Printing Office, 1985.


GARCÍA, M.J., Le norme generali del Codex iuris canonici, Rome, Edizioni Instituto

Giuridico Claretiano, 1995.

GELLHORN, E.and B. BOYER., Administrative Law and Process, 2nd ed., St. Paul, MN, West

Publishing Co., Nutshell Series, 1981.

GEROSA, L., Canon Law, Münster, Amateca, 2002.

GHIRLANDA, G., De ministris sacris seu de clericis, de praelaturis personalibus, Rome,

Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1985.

GLENDON, M.A., Catholicism and Human Rights, Dayton, University of Dayton, 2001.

GODFREY, J.,The Right of Patronage according to the Code of Canon Law, Canon Law

Studies, no. 21, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America,1924.

GOODWINE, J., The Right of the Church to Acquire Property, Canon Law Studies, no. 131,


HERVADA, J., Introduction to the Study of Canon Law, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2007.

HIGGINS, T.J., Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics, Milwaukee, Bruce, 1949.

HITE, J.F., “The Administration of Church Property,” in J.F. HITE and D.J. WARD(eds.),

Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon Law: A Textbook for Ministry Students, rev.

ed., Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1990.

HOBBES, T., Leviathan, in C.B. MCPHERSON (ed.), London, A. Crooke, reprint,

Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1968.

HOLLENBACH, D., Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights

Tradition, New York, Paulist Press, 1979.

HOLY SEE,Charter of Rights of the Family, 22 October 1983, Rome, Polyglot Press,

1983.

HUELS, J., The Catechumenate and the Law, Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 1994.

______, Empowerment for Ministry, New York, Paulist Press, 2003.

______,Liturgy and Law, Liturgical Law in the System of Roman Catholic Canon Law,

Montréal, Gratianus, Wilson & Lafleur, 2006.

______, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, 5threv.

ed., Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2016.

______, The Teaching Office of the Catholic Church: A Commentary on Book III of the

Code of Canon Law, Ottawa, Saint Paul University Faculty of Canon Law, 2017.

KANGER, H., Human Rights in the UN Declaration, Uppsala, University of Uppsala Press,

1984.

KASNY, J., The Right of Defense in Administrative Procedures: A Comparative and

Analogical Study, Canon Law Studies, no. 556, Washington, DC, Catholic

University of America,1998.

KINNEY, J., The Juridic Condition of the People of God, Rome, Catholic Book Agency,

1972.


KOLONDRA, G., Right to Fair Proceedings in the Judicial Penal Process in Light of the

Norms on the Ordinary Contentious Trial, Canon Law Studies, no. 570,


KOWAL, W., Philosophy of Law, Canon Law Class Notes, Ottawa, Saint Paul University,

2018.

LE TOURNEAU, D.L., Droits et devoirs fondamentaux des fidèles et des laïcs dans l’Église,

Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2012.

______, La dimension juridique du sacré, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2012.

LISTL, J., H. MÜLLER, and H. SCHMITZ (eds.), Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts,

Regensburg, Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1983.

LOMBARDÍA, P. and I. ARRIETA (eds.), Código de derecho canónico, Edición anotada,

Pamplona, Ediciones Unversdad de Navarra, S.A., 1983.

LON, Y.,The Right of Association and Its Application to Secular Priests, JCD dissertation,

Ottawa, Saint Paul University,1996.

LÜDICKE, K. (ed.), Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici, unter besonderer

Berücksichtigung der Rechtslage in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz,

Essen, Ludgerus Verlag, 1984-.

MADRWA, P., The Fundamental Individual Rights of the Human Person in the Teachings

of Pope Paul VI, Rome, Pontificia Universita Lateranense, 1983.

MARINI, F.J. (ed.), Comparative Sacramental Discipline in the CCEO and CIC,

Washington, DC, Canon Law Society of America, 2003.

MARTIN DE AGAR, J.T., A Handbook on Canon Law, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 1999.

MARTÍNEZ, S., Le associazioni di fedeli, Milan, Edizioni San Paolo, 2006.

______, Associations of Christ's Faithful, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée, 2008.

MARZOA, A., J. MIRAS, and R. RODRÍGUEZ-OCAÑA(eds.), Exegetical Commentary on the

Code of Canon Law, prepared under the responsibility of the Martín De Azpilcueta

Institute, Faculty of Canon Law, University of Navarra, E. CAPARROS (ed.), English

edition,Montreal, Wilson and Lafleur,2004.

MCKENNA, K.E., The Battle of Rights in the United States Catholic Church,New York,

Paulist Press, 2007.

______, The Right of Confidentiality and Clergy Personnel Records, JCD dissertation,

Ottawa, Saint Paul University,1990.

MELDEN, A.I., Rights and Right Conduct, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977.

MICHIELS, G., Normae generales juris canonici, 2nd ed., Paris, Desclée, 1949.

NEWMAN, J.H., An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, London, Longmans,

Green and Co., 1909.


NWABUDE, E.O., An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Canon Law of the Western (CIC 1983)

and Eastern (CCEO 1990) Churches, Onitsha, Africana First Publishers Limited,

2008.

OCHOA, X. (ed.), Leges Ecclesiae post Codicem iuris canonici editae, Rome,

Commentarium pro Religiosis, 1980.

O’CONNELL, D.M., An Analysis of Canon 810 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Its

Application to the Catholic Universities and Institutes of Higher Studies, JCD

dissertation, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America, 1990.

ÖRSY, L., From Vision to Legislation: From the Council to a Code of Laws, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, Marquette University Press, 1985.

______, Marriage in Canon Law: Texts and Comments, Reflections and Questions,

Wilmington, Delaware, Michael Glazier, 1986.

PAPROCKI, T.J., Vindication of Defense of the Rights of the Christian Faithful through

Administrative Recourse in the Local Church, JCD dissertation, Rome, Universitas

Gregoriana, 1991.

PAWLIKOWSKI, J.T., “Catholicism and Human Rights in Light of the Shoah,” in C.

RITTNER (ed.), Learn,Teach, Prevent: Holocaust Education in the 21st Century,

Greensburg, PA, National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education, Seton Hill

University, 2010.

PETERS, E.N., Penal Procedural Law in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon Law Studies,

no. 537, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America, 1994.

______, A Modern Guide to Indulgences, Chicago, Hillenbrand Books, 2008.

PORTILLO, A., Faithful and Laity in the Church: The Bases of their Juridical Status,

Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur Ltd, 2014.

______, Faithful and Laity in the Church, Shannon, Ireland, Ecclesia, 1972.

PROVOST, J., “Canonical Reflections on Selected Issues in Diocesan Governance,” in J.K.

MALLET (ed.), The Ministry of Governance, Washington, 1986.

RAHNER, K., The Church and the Sacraments, Freiburg, Herder, 1963.

REGATILLO, E., Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 6th ed., Santander, Sal Terrae, 1961.

RENKEN, J.A., Church Property: A Commentary on Canon Law governing Temporal

Goods in the United States and Canada, New York, Alba House, 2009.

______, Particular Churches and the Authority Established in Them, Commentary on

Canons 368-430, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2011.

______, Particular Churches: Their Internal Ordering: Commentary on Canons 460-572,

Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2011.

RILEY, L.J., The History, Nature and Use of Epikia in Moral Theology, Washington, DC,

Catholic University of America, 1948.

ROSIMINI, A., The Philosophy of Right, in D. Cleary and T. Watson (trans.), Durham,

Rosimini House, 1993.


RUF, N., Das Recht der katholischen Kirche nach dem neuen Codex Iuris Canonici für die

Praxis erläutert,Freiberg-im-Breisgau, Herder, 1983, 5th edition, 1989.

SALACHAS, D., Il magistero e l’evangelizzazione dei popoli nei Codici latino e oriental:

Studio teologico-giurdico comparativo, Bologna, Centro Editoriale Dehoniano,

2001.

SHEEHY, G. et al.(eds.),The Canon Law: Letter and Spirit, A Practical Guide to the Code

of Canon Law, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1995.

SISTACH, L.M.,Associations of Christ’s Faithful, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2008.

SIX, J.F., Church and Human Rights, Middlegreen, St. Paul Publications, 1992.

SULLIVAN, F., Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, Eugene, OR,

WIPF & Stock Publishers, 2002.

TUCK, R., Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 1979.

URRUTIA, F.J., De Ecclesiae munere docendi,Rome, Universitas Gregoriana, 1983.

VORGRIMLER, H. (ed.), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Freiburg, Herder and

Herder, 1967-1979, 5 vols.

WACHS, J.M., Obsequium in the Church: Sacred Tradition, Second Vatican Council, 1983

Code and Sacred Liturgy, Montréal,Wilson & Lafleur, 2014.

WHITE, A.R., Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1984.

WOESTMAN, W.H., Ecclesiastical Sanctions and the Penal Process: A Commentary on the

Code of Canon Law, 2nded. rev. and updated, Ottawa, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint

Paul University, 2003.

WOJTYLA, K., Sources of Renewal: The Implementation of the Second Vatican Council,

translated by P.S. Falla, London, Collins, 1980.

WOYWOD, S., A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by C. SMITH, New

York, Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1948.

WRENN, L.,Authentic Interpretations on the 1983 Code, Washington, DC, Canon Law

Society of America, 1993.

YZERMANS, V.A. (ed.), The Major Addresses of Pope Pius XII, St. Paul, North Central

Publishing Company, 1961

ZUBACZ, G.J., The Seal of Confession and Canadian Law, Montréal, Wilson & Lafleur

Ltée, 2009.

ZWIFKA, D., Regulation of the Rights of Individuals for the Common Good: An Analysis of

Canon 223 § 2 in Light of American Constitutional Law as Articulated in the

Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon Law Studies, no. 552,

Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America,1997.

ARTICLES


ABAD, J.A., Commentary on cc. 1205-1253, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1783-1912.

ABBASS, J., “Associations of the Christian Faithful in CIC and CCEO,” in Apollinaris,

73(2000), 227-244.

______, “CCEO Canon 1 and Absolving Eastern Catholics in the Latin Church,” in Studia

canonica, 46 (2012), 75-96.

______, “The Eucharist: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes,” in Studies

in Church Law, 7 (2011), 47-84.

______, “The Interrelationship of the Latin and Eastern Codes,” in The Jurist, 58 (1998),

1-40.

______, “Latin Bishops’ Duty of Care towards Eastern Catholics,” in Studia canonica, 35

(2001), 7-31.

______, “Penance: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes,” in Studia

canonica, 45 (2011), 293-328.

______, “The Temporal Goods of the Church: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and

Latin Codes of Canon Law,” in Periodica, 83 (1994), 669-714.

______, “Trials in General: A Comparative Study of the Eastern and Latin Codes,” in The

Jurist, 55 (1995), 834-874.

______, “Two Codes in Comparison,” in Kanonika, 7 (1997), 91-131.

ABBO, J., “The Revision of the Code,” in The Jurist, 20 (1960), 371-397.

ADAMCZYK, J., “Misje ludowe jako nadzwyczajna forma przepowiadania słowa Bożego w

parafii. Aspekt kanoniczno-pastoralny (Parish mission as an extraordinary form of

preaching the Word ofGod in the parish. The canonical-pastoral aspect),” in

Annales Canonici, 10 (2014), 81-103.

ALARCÓN, M.L., Commentary on cc. 1254-1310, in E. CAPARROS et al. (eds.), Code of

Canon Law Annotated, 963-1016.

______, Commentary on cc. 1254-1258, in Exegetical Comm, vol. IV/1, 1-40.

ALESANDRO, J.F., “General Introduction,” in CLSA Comm1, 1-22.

ANADARAYAR, A., “Participation of the Laity in the Governing, Teaching and Sanctifying

Office of the Church,” in Indian Theological Studies, 31 (1994), 218-252.

ANTONIO, V., “The Revised Order of Funerals: Theological and Pastoral Orientations,” in

Immaculate Conception School of Theology Journal, 10 (2008), 25-56.

ARIAS, J., Commentary on cc. 1311-1399, in CCLA, 1017-1086.

ARRIETA, J. I.,“The Active Subject of the Church’s Teaching Office (Canons 747-748),” in

Studia canonica,23 (1989), 243-256.

______, Commentary on cc. 412-514, in CCLA, 350-426.

______, “La posizione giuridica della famiglia nell’ordinamento canonico,” in Ius

Ecclesiae, 7 (1995), 551-560.


ARTNER, P., “Disciplinary Measures outside Book VI of the 1983 CIC,” in Studia

canonica, 42 (2008), 473-502.

ARZA, A. and P. GARIN, “Comentario al canon 868 §2 del CIC,” in Estudios Eclesiásticos,

74 (1999), 639-660.

AUSTIN, R.F., “The Search for Identity: Canonical Perspectives on Diocesan Development

Funds,” in Canon Law Society Newsletter, Australia and New Zealand, 1 (1997),

12-25.

AZZIMONTI, C., “L’ingresso in chiesa, libero e gratuito, nel tempo delle sacre celebrazioni

(can.1221),” in Quaderni di Diritto Ecclesiale, 18 (2005), 194-201.

BALAM MEDINA, M., “La función de enseňar del párroco,” in Revista Mexican de Derecho

Canonico, 9 (2003), 63-91.

BAÑARES, J.I., Commentary on cc. 934-944, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 660-693.

BARRET, R. J., “The Non-recognized Association and Its Capacity to Act in Court,” in

Periodica, 86(1997), 677-711.

______, “The Non-recognized Association and Its Capacity to Act in Court [Part II],” in

Periodica, 87 (1998), 39-79.

______, “The Normative Status of the Catechism,” in Periodica, 85 (1996), 9-34.

______, “The Pitfalls of the Imprimatur: A Gloss on Canon 827 §2,” in Angelicum, 77

(2000), 165-202.

______, “The Right to Integral Catechesis as a Fundamental Right of the Christian

faithful,” in Apollinaris, 67(1994), 179-206.

______, “The Right to Privacy,” in Law and Justice, 136 (1998), 39-57.

______, “The Rights of the Faithful: Some Signs of Progress,” in The Irish Theological

Quarterly, 61 (1995), 250-264.

______, “The Rights to Adequate Catechesis as a Fundamental Right of the Faithful,” in

Apollinaris, 70 (1997), 185-223.

______, “Two Recent Cases from the Signatura Affecting the Right to Privacy,” in Canon

Law Society Newsletter, Australia and New Zealand, 123 (2000), 6-20.

BARRY, J. A., “Judicial Procedures (cc.1400-1752),” in G. SHEEHYETet al. (eds.), The

Canon Law: Letter and Spirit, 811-971.

BARRY, R., “Should the Catholic Church Give Christian Burial to Rational Suicides?” in

Angelicum, 74 (1997), 513-550.

BASS, R., “Due Process: Conciliation and Arbitration,” in Canon Law Society of America

Proceedings, 53 (1991), 63-76.

BASSETT, W.W., “Christian Rights in Civil Litigation: Translating Religion into Justiciable

Categories,” in The Jurist, 46 (1986), 229-288.

BEAL, J. P., “Administrative Tribunals in the Church: An Idea Whose Time Has Come or

An Idea Whose Time Has Gone?” in CLSAProceedings, 55 (1993), 39-71.


______, “Canon Law and the Rights of the Faithful,” in New Theology Review, 3 (1994),

6-22.

______, “Catholic Theological Faculties in the United States,” in Studia canonica, 37

(2003), 443-466.

______, “Rights in the Church: Great Expectations, Meager Results,” in

CLSAProceedings, 73 (2011), 33-53.

______, “To Be or Not To Be, That Is the Question: The Rights of the Accused in the

Canonical Penal Process, in CLSAProceedings, 53 (1991), 77-97.

______, “Where’s the Body? Where’s the Blood? The Teaching Authority of the Diocesan

Bishop and the Rights of Catholic School Teachers,” in CLSA Proceedings, (1995),

91-128.

BAMBERG, A., “L’évêque face à la sainteté des sacrements: loi et procédure concernant les

délits les plus graves,” in Revue de Droit Canonique, 57 (2007), 409-433.

BERNARDIN, J., “Due Process in the Church,” in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 69 (1969),

756-757.

BEYER, J., “De iuribus humanis fundamentalibus in statuto iuridico Christifidelium

assumendis,” in Periodica, 58 (1969), 27-58.

______, “De statuto iuridico Christifidelium iuxta vota Synodi Episcoporum in novo

Codice Iuris condendo,” in Periodica, 57 (1968), 550-581.

______, “Religious Life or Secular Institutes,” in The Way Supplement, 7 (1969), 112-132.

BLANCO, M., Commentary on cc. 849-878, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 427-490.

BLYSKAL, L.,“Obsequium: A Case Study,” in The Jurist, 48 (1988), 559-589.

BOIRON, S., “Trente et les images,” in Année Canonique, 46 (2004), 195-222.

BOYLE, J., “Church Teaching Authority in the 1983 Code,” in The Jurist, 45 (1985), 136-

170.

BRADLEY, M., “The Evolution of the Right to Privacy in the 1983 Code: Canon 220,” in

Studia canonica, 38 (2004), 301-328.

BROWN, P., “The Right of Defense in Canon Law (and ‘Due Process’ in American Civil

Law),” in CLSA Proceedings, 70 (2008), 355-382.

BURKE, R.L., “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to

Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin,” in Periodica, 96 (2007), 3-

58.

BURKHARD, J., “Sensus fidei: Meaning, Role, and Future of a Teaching of Vatican II,” in

Louvain Studies, 17(1992), 18-34.

CALVO, J., Commentary on cc. 515-572, in CCLA, 427-469.

CASEY, M., “Associations of Christ’s Faithful: Possibilities for the Future,” in Studia

canonica, 41 (2007), 65-90.


______, “The Evolution of New Forms of Consecrated Life,” in Studia canonica, 36

(2002), 463-486.

CASTILLO, L.R., “La communion ecclésiale dans le nouveau code de droit canonique,” in

Studia canonica, 17 (1983), 331-355.

______, “Some General Reflections on the Rights and Duties of the Christian Faithful,”

in Studia canonica, 20(1986), 7-32.

______, “Some Reflections on the Proper Way to Approach the Code of Canon Law,” in

Communicationes, 17 (1985), 267-286.

CENALMOR, D., Commentary on cc. 209-223, in Ex Comm, vol. II/1, 47-151.

CERDÁ DONAT, M.T., “Educación católica y sociedad civil,” in Anuario de Derecho

Canónico, 5 (2016), 165-187.

CHIRAMEL, J., “Sacraments of Initiation in the Latin and Eastern Codes: a Comparative

Study,”in Studies in Church Law, 3 (2007), 327-350.

CHINGANTHARA, J., “Catholic Education: Perspectives of Canon Law,” in The Living

Word, 116 (2010), 292-310.

CITO, D., Commentary on cc. 793-821, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 193-286.

______, “Prescription in Penal Matters,” in P.M. DUGAN (ed.), The Penal Process and the

Protection of Rights in Canon Law: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the

Pontifical University of Holy Cross, Rome, March 25-26, 2004, Montréal, Wilson

and Lafleur, 2005, 183-201.

COGAN, P., “The Sacrament of Reconciliation: Issues, Praxis and the Future,” in


CORIDEN, J.A.,“Alternate Dispute Resolution in the Church,” in CLSA Proceedings, 48

(1986), 61-82.

______, “A Challenge: Make the Rights Real,” in The Jurist, 45 (1985), 1-23.

______, “The CLSA and the Protection of Rights: Legacy and Vision,” in


______, Commentary on cc. 747-833, in CLSA Comm1, 545-589.


______, “Freedom of Expression in the Church in Light of Canon 212 (CIC),” in


______, “Human Rights in the Church,” in Concilium, 124 (1979), 67-76.

______, “Necessary Canonical Reform: Urgent Issues for Action,” in Louvain Studies,

26 (2001), 147-165.

______, “Parish Pastoral Leaders: Canonical Structure and Practical Questions,” in The

Jurist, 67 (2007), 461-484.

______,“The Right of Catholics to Hold Meetings on Church Property: Canonical and

Pastoral Issues,” in The Jurist, 62 (2002), 76-91.


______, “Rules for Interpreters,” in The Art of Interpretation: Selected Studies on the

Interpretation of Canon Law, Washington, DC, 1982, 1-27.

______, “The Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop and its Collaborative Exercise,”

in The Jurist, 68 (2008), 382-407.

______, “What Became of the Bill of Rights?” in CLSAProceedings, 52 (1990), 47-60.

COUGHLIN, J., “Canonical Equity,” in Studia canonica, 30 (1986), 403-435.

CRONIN, J., “The Juridical Status of Baptized Non-Catholics in the New Code,” in

Clergy Review, 70 (1985), 117-128.

CRUZ, V., “Canon Law on Media,” in Philippine Canonical Forum, 7 (2005), 205-228.

______, “Bishops are Proclaimers of Justice,” in Philippine Canonical Forum, 10 (2008),

251-271.

CUSACK, B.A., Commentary on cc. 46-514, in CLSA Comm2, 610-671.

DALY, B., “Refusing Sacraments: Another Name for Driving People away from the

Church,” in Australasian Catholic Record, 80 (2003), 39-50.

DALY, E.F., “The Needed Mandate to Teach,” in CLSA Proceedings, 46 (1984), 114-129.

DANEELS, F., “The Right of Defense,” in Studia canonica, 27 (1993), 77-95.

DEELEY, R.P., “An Interpretation of Canon 812,” in CLSA Proceedings, (1988), 70-85.

DE LA HERA, A., Commentary on c. 381-390, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 767-806.

DE LIMA, G., “Catholic Education: Challenges and Prospects,” in Vidyajyoti, 69 (2005),

675-686.

DE PAOLIS, V., “Temporal Goods of the Church in the New Code with Particular Reference

to Institutes of Consecrated Life,” The Jurist, 43(1983), 343-360.

DE POOTER, P., “La ‘mission canonique’ el le ‘mandatum’ au sein des universités

ecclésiastiques et catholiques: un jeu de mots ou une distinction plus

fondamentale?” in Ius Ecclesiae, 14 (2004), 595-618.

______, “L’université catholique au service de l’Église et de la société,” in Ius Ecclesiae,

4 (1992), 45-78.

DEROO, R., “Ecclesial Structures and Social Justice,” in CLSAProceedings, 43 (1981), 32-

43.

DEUTSCH, B.F., “Towards a Declaration of Christian Freedoms,” in The Jurist, 29 (1969),

1-25.

DÍAZ, J.B., “El favor libertatis como clave hermenéutica del canon 223,” in Ius Canonicum,

53 (2013), 517-546.

DI NICOLA, G.P. and A. DANESE, “Notes on Amoris laetitia,” in Intams Review, 22 (2016),

3-14.

DOSS, J.P., “Freedom of Inquiry and Expression of Christifideles? Some Juridical

Considerations Starting from Canon 218 §1,” in Studia canonica, 44 (2010), 53-98.


______, “Giovani e scelte nella vita cristiana: alcune considerazioni canoniche,” in

Salesianum, 79 (2017), 377-403.

DOYLE, T.P., Commentary on cc. 1055-1165, in CLSA Comm1, 737-833.

DUGAN, P., “Burial in a Catholic Cemetery,” in Roman Replies andCLSA Advisory

Opinions, 2005, 82-83

DULLES, A., “The Mandate to Teach,” in America, 158 (1988), 293-295.

DUPUIS, J., “Defense of Rights: Developing New Procedural Norms,” in The Jurist, 47

(1987), 423-428.

D’SOUZA, V.G., “A Note on Parish Registers and Documents,” in Indian Theological

Studies, 42 (2005), 77-84.

DWYER, C., “Human Rights: Values for a Godless Age,” in Law and Justice, 146 (2001),

28-37.

ERRÁZURIZ, C.J., Commentary on cc. 822-832, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 287-331.

ERDO, P., “Expressiones obligationis et exhortationis in Codice iuris canonici,” in

Periodica, 76 (1987), 3-27.

______, “Ministerium, munus et officium in Codice iuris canonici,” in Periodica,

78(1989), 204-207.

______, “Questioni interrituali del diritto dei sacramenti,” in Periodica, 74 (1995), 315-

353.

EUART, S.A., Commentary on cc. 793-821, in CLSA Comm2, 953-993.

______, “Structures for Participation in the Church,” in Origins, 35 (2005-2006), 17-25.

EUSEBIO, E.C., “Integrated Catechesis: The Redaction History of Canons 773 and 779 of

the 1983 Code of Canon Law,” in Philippiniana Sacra, 143 (2013), 53-76.

FALCÃO, M., “A quem compete a aprovação dos textos relacionados com a catequese?” in

Forum Canonicum, 9 (2014), 65-73.

FERNANDES, W., “The Church and Human Rights,” in Vidyajyoti, 42 (1978), 455-462, 500-

512.

FINN, V., “The Right of the Christian Faithful to Follow Their Own Form of Spiritual Life,”

in CLSAProceedings, (1992), 98-109.

FLADER, J., “The Rights of the Faithful to the Spiritual Goods of the Church: Reflections

on Canon 213,” in Apollinaris, 2 (1992), 375-398.

FOLMER, J., “Promoting and Protecting Rights: An Introduction,” in The Jurist, 46

(1986), 1-13.

FORNÉS, J., Commentary on cc. 204-208, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 1-46.

FOX, J., “The Homily and the Authentic Interpretation of Canon 767, §1,” in Apollinaris,

62 (1989), 123-169.


FUENTES, J.A., “The Active Participants in Catechesis and Their Dependence on the

Magisterium (Canons 773-780),” in Studia canonica, 23(1989), 373-386.

______, Commentary on cc. 321-329, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 521-572.


GALLIN, A., “On the Road: Toward a Definition of a Catholic University,” in The Jurist,

48 (1988), 536-558.

GALINDO, M.D., “Asociaciones internacionales de fieles,” in Ius Canonicum, 50 (2010), 9-

29.

GALLAGHER, J., “Parents’ Right to Educate: A ‘Right Inalienable,” in Homiletic and

Pastoral Review, 76 (1976), 29-54.

GALVIN, W., “Ecclesiastical Legislation on Christian Education with Special Application

to Current Problems,” in The Jurist, 14 (1954), 463-480.

GARCIA, E., “Priestly Obligation to Hear Confessions,” in Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipinas,

63 (1987), 610-618.

GAUTHIER, A., “The Progress of the Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis,” in Studia canonica, 12

(1978), 377-388.

GLENDINNING, C., “Universae Ecclesiae: Text and Commentary,” in Studia canonica, 45

(2011), 355-409.

GO, R.T., “Administrative Tribunals in the Particular Church,” in Philippine Canonical

Forum, 9 (2007), 51-92.

GÓMEZ-IGLESIAS, V., Commentaries on c. 392-402, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 807-

859.

GONZÁLEZ, J., “Cremation: A Valid Option for Catholics?” in Boletín Eclesiástico de

Filipinas, 81 (2005), 899-910.

______, “Rights and Participation of the Laity in the Life of the Church,” in Boletin

Eclesiastico de Filipinas, 77 (2001), 662-708.

______, “Suicide and Catholic Burial,” in Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipinas, 77 (2001),

282-283.

GRAMUNT, I., Commentary on cc. 912-923, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 605-635.

______, “Non-Admission to Holy Communion: The Interpretation of Canon 915 (CIC),”

in Studia canonica, 35 (2001), 175-190.

GREEN, T.J.,Commentary on cc. 1311-1399, in CLSA Comm2, 1529-1605.

______, “The Church’s Sanctifying Mission: Some Aspects of the Normative Role of

the Diocesan Bishop,” in Studia canonica, 25(1991), 245-276.

______, “The Church’s Teaching Mission: Some Aspects of Normative Role of Episcopal

Conferences,” in Studia canonica, 27 (1993), 23-57.

______, “Critical Reflections on the Schema on the People of God,” in Studia canonica,

14 (1980), 237-321.


______, “Persons and Structures in the Church: Reflections on Selected Issues in Book II,”

in The Jurist, 45 (1985), 24-94.

______, “Rights and Duties of Diocesan Bishops,” in CLSA Proceedings, 45 (1983), 18-

36.

______,“Selected Issues in Developing Structures of Diocesan Communion,” in The Jurist,

69 (2009), 418-441.

______, “Selected Issues in Divine Worship/Sacraments in the Latin and Eastern Codes:

A Comparative Study,” in Studies in Church Law, 4 (2008), 81-108.

______, “The Teaching Function of the Church: A Comparison of Selected Canons in

the Latin and Eastern Codes,” in The Jurist, 55 (1995), 93-140.

GRIFFIN, B., “A Bill of Rights and Freedoms,” in J. PROVOST, (ed.), Code, Community,

Ministry, Washington, DC, CLSA, 1983, 28-29.

GROCHOLEWSKI, Z., “The Basis of the Right of Defense,” in Forum, 17 (2006), 339-360.

______,“Guiding Principles of Book VII of the Code of Canon Law”, in Forum, 10(1999),

61-91.

GUTIÉRREZ, J.L., Commentary on cc. 294- 411, in CCLA, 241-350.

HAGARTY, M.T.,“The Code, Catechesis, and the Concept “Experience”: A Commentary

on Canon 773,” in The Jurist, 61 (2001), 239-256.

HART, K.T., Commentary on cc. 849-896, in CLSA Comm2, 1033-1093.

HAYES, M.A., “As Stars for All Eternity: A Reflection on Canons 793-795,” in Studia

canonica, 23 (1989), 409-427.

HENSCHAL, M.J., “Cremation: Canonical Issues,” in The Jurist, 55 (1995), 281-298.

HERKEL, G., “The Sacred and Profane in Canon Law,” in Studia canonica, 3 (1969), 49-

75.

HERRANZ, J., “The Juridical Status of the Laity: The Contribution of the Conciliar

Documents and the 1983 Code of Canon Law,” in Communicationes, 17 (1985),

287-315.

HERVADA, J., Commentary on cc. 204-231, in CCLA, 163-187.

HESH, J.B., “The Right of the Accused Person to an Advocate in a Penal Trial,” in The

Jurist, 52 (1992), 723-734.

HILL, R., “The Power of Governance (cc. 129-144),” in CLSAComm1, 92-98.

HOLLAND, S., “Equality, Dignity, and Rights of the Laity,” in The Jurist, 47 (1987), 103-

128.

HUELS, J.M., “Canonical Comments on Concerts in Churches,” in Worship, 62 (1988), 165-

172.

______, Commentary on cc. 1-28, in CLSAComm2, 45-86.




______, “The Ministry of the Divine Word (cc. 756-761),” in Studia canonica, 23 (1989),

325-344.

______, “The Ministers of the Sacramentals,” in The Jurist, 65 (2005), 337-384.

______, “The Participation by the Faithful in the Liturgy,” in The Jurist, 46 (1988), 608-

637.

______, “A Policy on Canon 844, §4 for Canadian Dioceses,” in Studia canonica, 34

(2000), 91-118.

______, “Preparation for the Sacraments: Faith, Rights, Law,” in Studia canonica, 28

(1994), 33-58.

______, “The Supply of the Faculty to Confirm in Common Error,” in Studia canonica, 40

(2006), 293-348.

HURTUBISE, P., “Le devoir de mémoire. Pourquoi il faut assurer dès maintenant l’avenir de

nos archives religieuses,” in Studia canonica, 42 (2008), 319-330.

IRWIN, K., “Dying, Death and Burial - Overview of Christian Practices,” in The Jurist, 59

(1999), 175-190.

JACQUES, R., “The Rights and Obligations of the Faithful: Some Historical

Considerations,” in Forum, 77 (2006), 77-97.

JANICKI, J.A., Commentary on cc. 515-572, in CLSA Comm1, 415-447.

JEYASEELAN, S.J., “The Poor and the Priest in the Code of Canon Law - I,” in Vidyajyoti,

63 (1999), 925-932.

______, “The Poor and the Priest in the Code of Canon Law – II,” in Vidyajyoti, 64 (2000),

48-57.

JENKINS, R. E., “Defamation of Character in Canonical Doctrine and Jurisprudence” in

Studia canonica, 36 (2002), 419-462.

______, “Gifts, Donations and Donor Intent in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church,” in

The Jurist, 72(2012), 76-108.

JUHASZ, G.T., “Equality and Inequality of ‘Christ’s Faithful’ from a Perspective of

Philosophy and Theology of Canon Law,” in Folia theologica, 22 (2011), 163-176.

KASLYN, R. J., “Accountability of Diocesan Bishops: A Significant Aspect of Ecclesial

Communion,” in The Jurist, 67(2007), 109-152.

______, Commentary on cc. 204-223, in CLSAComm2, 241-290.

______, “The Value Underlying the Law: A Foundational Analysis of Canon 209 §1,” in

Studia canonica, 29 (1995), 7-28.

KASPER, W., “The Theological Foundations of Human Rights,” in The Jurist, 50 (1990),

148-166.

KENNEDY, R., Commentary on cc. 1254-1310, in CLSAComm2, 1451-1525.


KINNEY, J.F., “Rights and Duties of the Faithful in the Schema People of God: An

Encouragement to Exercise Them,” in CLSAProceedings, 42 (1980), 107-114.

KOWAL, W., “The Non-Admission of the Divorced and Remarried Persons to Holy

Communion: Canon 915 Revisited,” in Studia canonica, 49 (2015), 411–441.

KREMSMAIR, J., “Grundrechte im Codex Iuris Canonici 1983,” in Öesterreichisches Archiv

für Kirchenrecht, 40 (1993), 46-66.

KRUKOWSKI, J., Commentary on c. 1214-1222, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1808-1825.

LABANDEIRA, E., Commentary on cc. 1732- 1752, in CCLA, 1357-1374.

LAGGES, P., “The Penal Process: The Preliminary Investigation in Light of theEssential

Normsof the United States,” in Studia canonica, 38 (2004), 369-410.

LEGASPI, L.Z., “The Teaching Office of the Church,” in Philippiniana sacra, 18 (1983),

417-446.

LEVADA, W.J., “Reflections on the Age of Confirmation,” in Theological Studies, 57

(1996), 302-312.

LINAO, A.L., “The Deferral of Baptism of Children of Unmarried Couples,” in

PhilippineCanonical Forum, 8(2011), 279-288.

LLOBELL, J., “The Balance of the Interests of Victims and the Rights of the Accused: The

Right to Equal Process,” in P.M. DUGAN (ed.), The Penal Process and the

Protection of Rights in Canon Law: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the

Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, March 25-26, 2004, Montréal,

Wilson and Lafleur, 2005, 67-127.

LOBO, G.V., “Human Rights in the New Code,” in Vidyajyoti, 48 (1984), 486-499.

LOHSE, E.M., “The Right of the Faithful to Enter a Church for the Offering of Divine

Worship,” inStudia Canonica, 51 (2017), 497-527.

LOMBARDÍA, P.,“The Fundamental Rights of the Faithful,” trans. by J. H. Stevenson, in

Concilium, 8 (1969), 42-46.

______, “Fundamental Rights of the Faithful,” in N. EDELBY, T. JIMENEZ, and P. HUIZING

(eds.), The Future of Canon Law, New York, 1969.

LÓPEZ ALARCÓN, M., Commentary on cc. 1254-1310, in CCLA, 963-1016.

LOURDUSAMY, S., “Canonical Perspective on Social Justice and Charity,” in Studia

canonica, 49(2015), 483-500.

LOZA, F., Commentary on cc. 965-986, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 771-832.

MAGESA, L., “The Conscience of the African Church in the Synod on the Family and

Amoris laetitia,” in Intams Review, 22 (2016), 154-168.

MAIDA, A.J., “Rights in the Church,” in G. J. DYER (ed.), A Pastoral Guide to Canon Law,

Dublin, Gill and Macmillan, 1977, 30-45.

DEL MAR MARTÍN, M., Commentary on cc. 1166-1172, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2,

1634-1659.


MARTENS, K., “Sacrament and Contract regarding Canonical Procedure,” in Revue de droit

canonique, 53 (2003), 159–174.

______, “Secrecy in Catholicism,” in Revue de droit canonique, 52 (2002), 259-274.

MARTÍN DE AGAR, J.T., Commentary on cc. 840-848, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 395-

426.

______, Commentary on cc. 1166- 1253, in CCLA, 907- 962.

MCCORQUODALE, R., “Contemporary Human Rights and Christianity,” in Law and Justice,

154 (2005), 6-26.

MCDONOUGH, E., “Archives of Religious Communities,” in Review for Religious, 65

(2006), 323-327.

______, “Categories of Consecrated Life,” in Review for Religious, 50 (1991), 301-305.

______, “The Protection of Rights in Religious Institutes,” in The Jurist, 46 (1986), 164-

204.

______, “Understanding ‘Obligations and Rights’ in Church Law,” in Review for

Religious, 49 (1990), 779-784.

MCGRATH, A., Commentary on cc. 204-223, in CLSGBI Comm, 115-126.

______, “Communicatio in sacris: An Effort to Express the Unity of Christians or Simply

an Exercise in Politeness?,” in CLSAProceedings, 63 (2001), 173-214.

MCINTYRE, J.P., “The Acquired Right: A New Context,” in Studia canonica, 26 (1992),

25-38.

______, “Lineamenta for a Christian Anthropology: cc. 208-223,” in Periodica, 85 (1996),

249-276.

______, “Rights and Duties Revisited,” in The Jurist, 56 (1996), 111-127.

MCMANUS, F.R., Commentary on cc. 834-896, in CLSA Comm1, 593-642.



______,Commentary on cc. 959-1007, in CLSA Comm2, 1138-1192.

MCMANUS, W., “The Right of Catholics to Govern the Church,” in America, 167 (2015),

347-378.

MENDONCA, A., “Denial of the Right of Defense,” in Studies in Church Law, 3 (2007),

445-450.

______, “Promotion and Protection of Rights in the Church,” in, Philippiniana Sacra, 99

(1998), 435-466.

______, “The Right of the Parties to Inspect the Acts and Its Relation to the Validity of a

Definitive Sentence in a Marriage Nullity Process,” in Studia canonica, 33 (1999),

293-347.


MESZAROS, J.C., “Procedures of Administrative Recourse,” in The Jurist, 56 (1986), 107-

141.

MODDIE, M.R., “Defense of Rights: Developing New Procedural Norms,” in The Jurist, 47

(1987), 423-449.

______, “Fundamental Rights and Access to the Acts of a Case,” in Studia canonica, 28

(1994), 123-154.

MORRISEY, F.G., “Acquiring Temporal Goods for the Church’s Mission,” in The Jurist,

56(1996), 586-603.

______, “The Advocate for Accused and the Right of Defense,” in CLSAProceedings, 39

(2004), 99-110.

______, Commentary on cc. 1254-1310, in CLSGBI Comm, 707-747.

______, “Issues Relating to Cremation Today,” in Australian Catholic Record, 81 (2004),

308-323.

______, “Ordinary and Extraordinary Administration: Canon 1277,” in The Jurist,

48(1998), 709-726.

______, “Outline for a Spirituality of the Family in the Light of the Apostolic Exhortation

Amoris laetitia,” in The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland

Newsletter, 188 (2016), 31-45.

______, “Some Pastoral Implications Arising from Chapter VIII of the Apostolic

Exhortation Amoris laetitia,” in The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and

Ireland, 186 (2016), 53-80.

______, “The Rights and Duties of the Faithful according to the Code of Canon Law,” in


______, The Rights of Parents in the Education of their Children (Canons 796-806),” in

Studia canonica, 23 (1989), 429-444.

______, “The Role of Law and the Exercise of Authority within the Church, Particularly

at the Parish Level,” in The Canonist, 6 (2015), 220-249.

______, “Twenty-Five Years of the 1983 Code: Reflections on the Past, Thoughts on the

Future,” in CLSAP, 70 (2008), 1-27.

______, “What Makes an Institution ‘Catholic’?” in The Jurist,47 (1987), 531-544.

MOSCONI, M.,“A che ora apre la chiesa?Le disposizioni del can. 937,” in Quaderni di

Diritto Ecclesiale, 16 (2003), 145-163.

MURPHY, C.M., “Charity, Not Justice as Constitutive of the Church’s Mission,” in

Theological Studies, 68 (2007), 274-286.

MYERS, J., Commentary on cc. 1254-1310, in CLSA Comm1, 857-890.

______, “Divorce, Remarriage, and Reception of the Holy Eucharist,” in The Jurist, 57

(1997), 484-516.

NAVARRO, L.F., Commentary on cc. 298-320, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 2/1, 436-520.


______, “The Typical Forms of the Association of the Faithful,” in Philippiniana Sacra,37

(2002), 279-295.

NAVARRETE, U., “Missa pro populo et stips alterius Missae eadem die celebratae (c. 951,

§1),” in Periodica de re Canonica, 77(1988), 497-510.

NEDUNGATT, G., “Equal Rights of the Churches in the Catholic Communion,” in The

Jurist, 49 (1989), 1-22.

OLIVER, R.W., “Associations of the Faithful during the Conciliar Phase of Vatican II,” in

The Jurist, 70 (2010), 434-454.

______, “Associations of the Faithful in the Ante-preparatory and Preparatory Phases of

Vatican II,” in The Jurist, 70 (2010), 86-113.

______, “Canonical Requisites for Establishing Associations for the Faithful,” in The

Jurist, 61 (2001), 213-318.

OMBRES, R., “Confidentiality in Church and State,” inCLSANZ Newsletter, 101 (1995), 68-

70.

______, “The Right of Religious to Confidentiality,” in CLSANZ Newsletter,104 (1995),

40-44.

ÖRSY, L.M., “Fundamental Rights in the Church: Personal Report on the Convention of

the International Association for the Study of Canon Law,” in The Jurist, 41 (1981),

181-184.

______, “The Mandate to Teach Theological Disciplines: Glosses on Canon 812 of the

New Code,” in Theological Studies, 44 (1983), 476-488.

______, “Meaning of novus habitus mentis: The Search for New Horizons,” in The Jurist,

48 (1988), 429-447.

OTADUY, J., “Perspectiva canónica del trust,” in Ius Canonicum, 55 (2015), 593-640.

PAGÉ, R.,“Associations of Christ’s Faithful: Selected Issues,” in The Jurist, 62 (2002), 294-

311.

______, “Associations of the Faithful in the Church,” in The Jurist, (1987), 165-203.

______, “Les associations de fidèles: reconnaissance et érection,” in Studia canonica, 19

(1985), 327-338.


______, “The Principle of Subsidiarity Revisited,” in CLSAProceedings, 64 (2002), 191-

208.

______, “La responsibilité des évêques dans l’enseignenent: le mandat,” in Ius Ecclesiae,

5 (1993), 699-717.

PAGUIO, W.C., “Right to the Sacraments,” in Boletín Eclesiástico de Filipinas, 62 (1986),

660-664.

PALLATH, P., “Sacramental Sharing according to the Second Vatican Council and Catholic

Canon Law,” in Studies in Church Law, 4 (2008), 185-214.


PAPROCKI, T., “Rights of Christians in the Local Church: Canon Law Procedures in

Light of Civil Law Principles of Administrative Justice,” in Studia canonica, 24

(1990), 427-442.

______, “Why Stick to the Book?” in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 8-9 (2004), 8-15.

PASSICOS, J.,“Le droit de participation au gouvernment pastoral,” in Année canonique, 25

(1981), 287-297.

______, “Droits de l’homme, droits du chrétien : Quelle problématique?” in Année

canonique, 25 (1981), 263-265.

______, “Le statut des instruments de catechèse dans le Code,” in Année canonique, 31

(1988), 147-156.

PAWLIKOWSKI, J.T., “Walking with, and beyond, John Courtney Murray,” in New

Theology Review, 9 (August 1996), 20-40.

PEÑUELA, V.G., Commentary on cc. 1299- 1310, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 4/1, 150-194.

PFNAUSCH, E., “Protectionof Rights of Persons in the Church: A Hearing,” in

CLSAPrceedings,54 (1992), 195-207.

PERLASCA, A., “La prima confessionedei fanciulli nel dinamismodell’iniziazione

cristiana,” in Quaderni diDiritto Ecclesiale, 18 (2005), 79-102.

PREE, H., “Questioni interrituali e interecclesialinell’amministrazione dei sacramenti,” in

Folia Theologica et Canonica, 17 (2014), 213-230.

PRICE, D., “A Person’s Rights in Canon Law,” in Canon Law Society of Great Britain

Ireland Newsletter, 144 (2005), 12-18.

PROVENCHER, N., “The Church in the World,” in The Jurist, 47 (1987), 32-50.

PROVOST, J.H., “Brought together by the Word of the Living God (cc. 762-772),” in Studia

canonica, 23 (1989), 345-371.


______, “Competent Tribunal When Respondent’s Address Unknown,” in The Jurist, 44

(1984), 244-246.

______, “Ecclesial Rights,” in CLSAProceedings,” 44 (1982), 41-62.

______, “The Nature of Rights in the Church,” in CLSAProceedings, 53 (1991), 1-18.

______, “Protecting and Promoting the Rights of the Christians: Some Implications for

Church Structure,” in The Jurist, 46 (1986), 289-342.

______, “Removal of Materials from Secret Archives,” in A.J. ESPELAGE (ed.), CLSA

Advisory Opinions, 1994-2000, Washington, CLSA, 2002, 117-121.

PROVOST, J.H.and R.A. HILL, “Advisory Opinion: Stole Fees,” in The Jurist, 45 (1985),

321-324.

PROVOST,J.H. and R. TORFS, “Rights in Canon Law: Real, Ideal, or Fluff?” in



RACINE, J., “La formation des maîtres en enseignement religieux, des animateurs en

pastorale, des aumôniers et l’état,” in Studia canonica, 37 (2003), 503-520.

READ, G.,“Age of Confirmation: Limitations on the Power of the Bishop,” in CLSGBI

Newsletter, 125 (2001), 107-110.

______, “The Canonical Status of Ecclesial Movements,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 109

(1997), 41-49.

______, “The Integrity of the Sacrament of Penance,” in CLSGBINewsletter, 129 (2002),

40-42.

______, “Pastoral Policies on the Administration of the Sacraments,” in CLSGBI

Newsletter, 124 (2000), 43-44.

______,“Prohibition of an Individual from Receiving Holy Communion,”

inCLSGBINewsletter, 157 (2009), 65-72.

______, “Receiving Communion Worthily,” inCLSGBINewsletter, 154 (2008), 61-64.

______, “The Roman Missal: The New General Instruction,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 125

(2001) 44-46.

______, “Unauthorized Baptism,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 149 (2007), 54-58.

______, “Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass,” in CLSGBI Newsletter, 161 (2010), 26-

29.

RECCHI, S., “L’impegno a diffondere l’annuncio della salvezza (canon 211),” in Quaderni

di Diritto Ecclesiale, 8 (1995), 419-423.

REHRAUER, A.F., “Current Issues inLiturgical and Sacramental Law,” in

CLSAProceedings, 62(2000), 254-262.

______, “An Introduction to Liturgical Law: Sources and Interpretation,” in


REID, C.J., “Thirteenth-Century Law and Rights: The Word ius and Its Range of Subjective

Meanings,” in Studia canonica, 30 (1996), 295-342.

RENKEN, J.A.,“Acts of the Church in Relation to Temporal Goods: The Ordinary and the

Extraordinary,” in Studia canonica, 50 (2016), 519-530.

______, “Acts of Extraordinary Administration,” in S.A. EUART, J.A. ALESANDRO, and

P.B.R. HARTMANN (eds.), Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions,

Washington, CLSA, 2010, 160-168.

______, “Canon 1263: Parish Financial Goals,” in J.J. KOURY and S. VERBEEK (eds.),

Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions, Washington, CLSA, 2008, 122-124.

______, “Canonical Challenges in Caring for Parish Property,” in Studies in Church Law,

9 (2013), 123-152.

______, “Collaboration of Canon Law and Civil Law in Church Property Issues,” in





______, “Pious Wills and Pious Foundations,” in Philippine Canonical Forum, 10 (2008),

69-110.

______, “The Principles Guiding the Care of Church Property,” in The Jurist, 68(2008),

136-177.

______, “The Stable Patrimony of Public Juridic Persons,” in The Jurist, 70(2010), 131-

162.

______, “Temporal Goods in the Latin and Eastern Codes: A Comparative Study,” in


REUTER, A. “The Missionary Activity of the Church (Canons 781-792),” in Studia

canonica, 23 (1989),387-407.

RINCÓN-PÉREZ, T., Commentary on cc. 889-893, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 533-555.

______, “El ministro de la confirmación, edad y preparación debida del confirmando,” in

Revista Española de Derecho Canónico, 61 (2004), 87-114.

RINERE, E.A., “Catholic Identity and the Use of the Name ‘Catholic’,” in The Jurist, 62

(2002), 131-158.

______, “The Individual’s Right to Confidentiality,” in CLGBI Newsletter, 104 (1995), 33-

41.

ROBINSON, G.J., “Authority and Leadership,” in The Way Supplement, 65 (1989), 119-130.

______, “Law in the Life of the Church,” in Studia canonica, 17 (1983), 47-61.

ROBITAILLE, L., “An Examination of Various Forms of Preaching: Toward an

Understanding of the Homily and Canons 766-767,” in CLSA Proceedings, 58

(1996), 308-325.

ROCHE, G., “The Poor and the Code of Canon Law: Some Relevant Issues in Book II,” in

Studia canonica, 30 (1989), 267-284.

______, “The Poor and Temporal Goods in Book V of the Code,” in The Jurist, 55 (1995),

299-348.

RYAN, D., “Law in the Church: The Vision of Scripture,” in Studia canonica, 17 (1983),

5-27.

SALACHAS, D., “Problemi interrituali nei due Codici orientale e latino,” in Apollinaris, 67

(1994), 660-661.

SÁNCHEZ-GIL, A.S., “L’apporto dei fedeli laici all’esercizio della cura pastorale della

comunità parrochiale,” in J.I. ARRIETA and G.P. MILANO (eds.), Metodo, fonti e

soggetti del diritto canonico, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999.


SANTOS, J.L., Commentary on cc. 1176-1190, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/2, 1674-1716.

SARAIVA MARTINS, J., “Iter e punti salienti della Cost. Apost. Ex corde Ecclesiae,” in

Seminarium, 42 (1990), 657-665.


SCHMITZ, H., “Das Nihil Obstat des Diözesanbischofs,” in Archiv für katholisches

Kirchenrecht, 170 (2001), 51-73.

SCHÖCH, N., “Relegation of Churches to Profane Use (C. 1222, §2): Reasons and

Procedure,” in The Jurist, 67 (2007), 485-502.

SEBASTIAN, K.S., “Participation of the Laity in the Decision-Making Structures of the

Church,” in Vidyajyoti, 66 (2002), 52-66.

SHANAHAN, D., “Legislating for the People of God: The Lessons of History,” in Studia

canonica, 17 (1983), 29-45.

SHEA, P.T., “Records Management and Canon 489, Part One: Civil Law Concerns,” in

CLSAProceedings, 2009, 168-175.

SIMON, M., “Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Une élaboration de douze années,” in

RevueThéologique de Louvain, 33 (2002), 211-238.

SMITH, G.N., “The Canonical Visitation Today,” in Periodica, 98 (2009), 643-661.

SMITH, W.B., “Non-Catholic Funerals?” in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 4 (2005), 67-

68.

SOLER, C., “El derecho fundamental a la palabra y los contenidos de la predicación,”

inFidelium Iura, 2 (1992), 305-331.

SORRENTINO, D., “Procedure canoniche e prospettive teologico-spirituali,” in Notitiæ, 40

(2004), 618-626.

SPINELLI, L., “Responsabiliti àparte cipata dei laici al consiglio pastorale,” in l’Année

canonique, hors série 2 (1992), 827-831.

STETSON, J.W.H., Commentary on cc. 959-964, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 749-770.

SWIDLER, L., “Dēmo-Kratіa, The Rule of the People of God, or Consensus fidelium,” in L.

SWIDLER and P. FRANSEN (eds.), Authority in the Church and the Schillebeeckx

Case, New York, Crossroad Publishing Co., 1982, 226-243.

______, “Human Rights: A Historical Overview,” in Concilium, 4 (1993), 12-22.

TAYLOR, C., “Records Management and Canon 489, Part Two: Canon 489, A

Contemporary Review,” in CLSAProceedings, 2009, 175-180.

TEJERO, E., Commentary on cc. 834- 896, in CCLA, 651-694.

______, Commentary on c. 834-839, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 3/1, 343-394.


THOMAS, F.G., “The Bishop in His Teaching Office and Those Who Assist Him,” in Studia

canonica, 21(1987), 229-238.

THORN, J., “Defense of Rights and Right of Defense,” in CLSGBINewsletter, 101 (1995),

12-38.

TIERNEY, B., “Ius and Metonomy in Ruinus,” in R. CASTILLO LARA(ed.), Studia in honorem

Eminentissimi Cardinalis Alphonsi M. Stickler, Rome, Libreria Ateneo Salesiano,

1992.


______, “Origins of Natural Rights Language: Texts and Contexts, 1150-1250,” in History

of Political Thought, 10 (1989), 615-646.

TINOKO, J.M., “The Fundamental Rights and Obligations of the Faithful,” in Philippiniana

Sacra, 18 (1983), 392-416.

TIRAPU, D., Commentary on cc. 1259-1272, in Exegetical Comm, vol. 4/1, 41-80.

TOBIN, J., “The Diocesan Bishop as Moderator of the Entire Ministry of the Word,” in

CLSANZProceedings,1988, 51-84.

______, “The Diocesan Bishop as Catechist,” in Studia canonica, 18 (1984), 365-

414.

TORFS, R., “L’affaire Gaillot et la liberté d’expression,” in Revue de Droit Canonique, 45

(1995), 83-89.

TOURNEAU, D.L., “Le canon 213 sur le droit aux biens spirituels et ses conséquences sur

lesdroits et les devoirs fondamentaux dans l’Église,” in Studia canonica, 47 (2013),

407-466.

______, “Le canon 220 et les droits fondamentaux à la bonne réputation et à l’intimité,” in

Ius Ecclesiae, 26 (2014), 127-148.

TRAVERS, P.J., “Reception of the Holy Eucharist by Catholics Attempting Remarriage after

Divorce and the 1983 Code of Canon Law,” in The Jurist, 55 (1995), 187 -217.

TREANOR, J.J., “Records Management and Canon 489, Part Three: Canon 489 from an

Archivist/ RecordsManager’s Perspective,” in CLSAProceedings, 2009, 180-184.

VIERA, M., “Records Management and Canon 489, Part Four: The Tribunal Archive,” in

CLSAProceedings, 2009, 185-189.

VISIOLI, M., “Quando una organizzazione caritativa può dirsi ‘cattolica’? Considerazioni

sul motu proprio Intima Ecclesiae natura,” in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, 54

(2014), 311-337.

UY, V.R., “The Principle of Equity in the Code of Canon Law,” in Philippine Canonical

Forum, 8 (2006), 65-106.

VERE, P.J., “Administering Viaticum to a Dying Individual of Unknown Cognitive

Capacity,” in Roman Replies (2004), 151-154.

WACHS, J.M., “Obsequium: Why and How It Is Still Possible to Demand and to Offer,”

inPeriodica, 103 (2014), 417-445.

WALLACE, J., “Reconsidering the Parish Mission,” inWorship, 67 (1993), 340-351.

WARD, D.J., “The Rights of Christians within the Code of Canon Law,” in J. HITE and D.

WARD (eds.), Readings, Cases, and Materials in Canon Law: A Textbook for

Ministerial Students, Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1990, pp. 179-187.

WERCKMEISTER, J., “The Admission to the Sacraments of Divorcees Who Have Remarried

andthe Interpretation of Canon 915,” in Revue de Droit Canonique, 51 (2001), 373-

399.

WRENN, L.G., Commentary on cc. 1400-1752, in CLSA Comm1, 945-1046.



ZUZEK, I., “La ‘Lex Ecclesiae fundamentalis’ et les deux Codes,” in Année canonique, 40

(1998), 19-48.

288

288

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Sarath Chandra Sagar Maddineni, C.Ss.R. was born in Nagrjunasagar, India on 5

January 1977. He entered the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists)

in 1992. He professed first vows in 2000 and final vows in 2004. He was ordained a priest

on 18 May 2005 in St. Joseph Parish, Nagrjunasagar, India.

After a year of ordained ministry in India, Sarath Maddineni, C.Ss.R. opted to work

in Kenya in the Redemptorist Mission. From 2006-2008 he was assisting in the Iruma

Parish in Meru Diocese as well as conducting youth seminars and preaching retreats. In

2008-2011 he was made the pastor of Iruma parish, and during this time he was

instrumental in beginning a primary school for the parish, which is named St. Alphonsus

Academy. In 2011-2012 he worked as an associate pastor of St. Joseph Parish in Grande

Prairie, Alberta, Canada, which is served by the Redemptorists. In 2012-2014 he was

preaching retreats for laity, religious men and women, and seminarians in Kenya, Tanzania,

and Uganda.

Sarath Maddineni, C.Ss.R. holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Bangalore

University (1999), a Bachelor’s in Theology from St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute in

Bangalore (2004), a Master’s in Canon Law from the University of Ottawa (2016), and a

Licentiate in Canon Law from St. Paul University, Ottawa (2016). He was the Faculty

Council representative of the licentiate students for the academic year 2015-2016.He began

his Ph.D. programme at St. Paul in 2016. Since January 2017, he has held the office of

Defender of the Bond for the Eparchy of Saint Sauveur of the Montreal Tribunal for the

Greek Melkite Catholics in Canada and the office of a Collegial Judge at the Arch Diocese

of Toronto since September 2018. Since July 2018 he is appointed as the associate pastor

of St. Patrick’s Parish in Toronto served by the Redemptorists.

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS COMMON TO A AITHFUL IN THE ...€¦ · EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS...

Documents

Transcript of EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS COMMON TO A AITHFUL IN THE ...€¦ · EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT RIGHTS...